SUPREME COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2317, 11 February 1892, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Timaru—Tuesday, Feb. 9th. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Dennistoun.] His Honor took his seat at 11 a.m. THE GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury were called as follows :—Messrs F. W. Marchant (foreman), C. Bowker, F. Blackwell, T. G. Rowley, W. Martin, R. Cuthbert, J. C. Park, F. Cullman, E. Kelland, J. Hardcistle, E. R. Guinness, E. Pilbrow, C. Hassell, R. Orwin, J. Meikle, W. H. Foden, G. L. Meason, M. White, A. Sherratt, J. Campbell, J. J. Grandi, H. Jackson, and J. Cochrane. True bills were found in all cases, and at 11.45 o'clock the grand jurors were discharged. HOUSEBREAKING. Thomas Bateman was charged with breaking into the dwelling-house of Peter Rooney at Kingsdown ou the 12th day of November, and with stealing £3 9s Gd and one piece of tobacco. The prisoner pleaded guilty, and had nothing to say in answer to the usual question. His Honor sentenced him to 18 months' hard labor. BURGLARY. W. E. Cowley was charged with breaking into the Club Hotel, Timaru, at 5.15 a.m. on the 16th November and stealing therefrom a bottle of whiskey, the property of D. McGuinness.

Mr J. W. White, Crown Prosecutor, appeared to conduct the case, and Mr J. Hay defended the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty. The jury were empannelled as follows :—Messrs W. Croll, A. Martin, A. Hamilton, H. J. Andrews, H. Collins, D. Findlay, R. Drysdale, J. Drinnan, E. W. Ensor, W. Lewis, C. Haar, and W. W. Sims (foreman). Mr WMte opened the case. On the Bth and 12th November whiskey of the Hawthorn blend and Gilbey's dry gin, Mr White said, were missed from the Club Hotel, and on the night of the 16th it was decided to set a watch. Costigan (the barman), stayed in the bar all night, and about 5 o'clock in the morning the prisoner came through the door opening from a short passage which is between the bar and the sample room. With the aid of a plan Mr White pointed out th 9 rooms, and also where Costigan was lying on watch. Prisoner got over the counter, opened a blind sufficiently to throw the light on a shelf containing bottles and took a bottle of Hawthorn whiskey. Alter doing this the prisoner went out and fastened the door leading into the sample room, so preventing Costigan following him in that direction. Costigan then got out by a corner door, met Constable Hallett outside, and in consequence of what he said to the constable, the latter pointed out a man going up George street. Previous to this the constable had heard a door slam, and had seen prisoner step from the footpath opposite the hotel into the road in Stafford street. They ran after the prisoner, who was overtaken as he turned a corner into Sophia street, and was charged with breaking into the hotel. He said "I was never in the house." The prisoner was taken to the lockup, and on Constable Hallett and Detective Livingstone searching the spot where accused was arrested, they found a bottle of whiskey concealed in some grass inside a hedge.

Evidence was given in support of the statement of the Crown Prosecutor, and Mr Hay addressed the jury for the prisoner.

The jury found the prisoner guilty. His Honor said he would take into consideration the fact that prisoner had been in gaol awaiting trial for three months' and sentenced him to fifteen months' imprisonment with hard labor.

I ARSON. H. S. D. Homes, charged with unlawfully and maliciously setting fire to ixiu dwelling house, the Hilton Hotel, on December 6th, with intent (1) to defraud, (2) to injure, pleaded not guilty. Mr Martin (Christchurch), for the Crown, Mr White for accused. The following formed the jury :—J. "Vickers, D. Maclean, J. Shepherd, A. Galbraith, Jas. McDonald, G. Lawrie, C. Robinson, F. W. M. Jones, J. Binskin, A. Denny, D. Campbell, and J. Wright. Ten others called were challenged or ordered to stand aside. Mr Martin gave an outline of the case to the jury. Arson cases, he observed, were difficult to prove, as, if successful, the evidence of the crime was swept away by the fire itself, and if not successful tht evidences that it had been set fire to would still be most likely to be destroyed. As a rule the evidence in cases of arson was circumstantial, another class of cases being those in which there was an accomplice, who told upon his companion. Juries could never safely convict upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, as he must be as bad as the prisoner in the dock. But where they had a large number of circumstances all pointing to the guilt of the accused, the evidence of an accomplice became important, as directing attention to the

points in the circumstantial evidence. In this case there is one witness almost an accomplice, a man named Ineson, who was staying with Homes. If they believed Ineson, there was the whole case, for Ineson said that Homes on more than one occasion stated to him his intention of burning down the place, and that on the night of the fire occurred Homes told him that he intended burning it down that very night, but he (Ineson) did not

believe him. During that night Homes awoke him and &aid he had done it, and if Ineson would keep his mouth shut he would give him £2O. An inquiry was made, Homes did not pay the £2O, and Ineson did not hold his tongue. If they t believed this story there was an end to the case. But if there was no corroborative evidence, he would not ask them t© believe that story, There was, however, so much circumstantial evidence that if they struck Ineson's evidence out altogether they would have sufficient to justify them in convicting. He did not ask them to take either one or the other, but to take both stories together, and see how the' case stood then. Mr Martin then described several classes of witnesses he would call. Some would give direct evidence concerning the fire ; these were Ineson, corroborated by Waypole, a swagger who slept in an outhouse, as to the demeanor of Bomes at the fire. Others would prove that there was a.

motive in the financial difficulties of Homes, his debts to the Crown Brewery Company, who had a bill of sale over Ms stock of furniture, and to other persons. Homes was considerably in debt. Another class of witnesses would show how a fire could benefit Mm, by the insurance of £2OO on his stock and furniture. If he got this he could have cleared oil' at least the most pressing of his liabilites. It might be asked, where would the advantage be in burning furniture and stock valued at £2OO, and getting £2OO for it? The reply was that the furniture and stock was not worth anything like that sum ; the house was very bare, and the stock very low. Another class of witnesses would prove that, and that accused made fraudulent misrepresentations respecting the contents of the house ; he put down in the list on which he based the claim on the insurance company, articles which existed only in his imagination. Another class would be witnesses called to rebut the possible suggestion that the fire was accidental. ! When this case was before the R.M. Court, Geraldine, a short time ago, we reported the evidence given for the prosecution very fully, and as it must be still fresh in the minds of our readers it iB unnecessary for us to repeat it. William Heatley, Alfred White, and John Ineson (servant at the hotel, and who gave the information leading to Homes' arrest) repeated the evidence given in the R.M. Court. The lattor's evidence was very lengthy. In crossexamination Mr White asked : • If you had got the £2O you would not have said a word about it I —lneson : You can't tell, you see, how I would act. I didn't get the money. His Honor: It's pretty clear that if he had got the money ho would have held his tongue. The witness continued to contradict the evidence of other witnesses in the Resident Magistrate's Court as to Ms statements to them. His cross-examination was interrupted, by a discussion on whether a statement made, by the witness to the police, and now the hands of the Crown Prosecutor, could be demanded by counsel for the defence for the purpose of contradicting witness. His Honor said the rule relied upon for refusing access to it was intended to protect informers, but here the informer was | in: the witness-box. The statement was handed over and Mr White read it. It was made by Ineson on the 7th, and it was practically what Homes had told him to say, including that he (Ineson) was first awake and aroused Homes. Joseph W. Waypoole, Detective Livingston, and W. M. Patrick repeated their evidence. J. Malcomson, clerk in Mr White's office, attested the signatures to Holmes' bill of sale to the Crown Brewery Company as security for £7O and further advance. Several witnesses were next called to prove the indebtedness of accused. L. W. Parsons, traveller to the Crown Brewery Company, stated the company were the owners of the building. Homes owed the company at the time of the fire, and now, £133 18s 6d. The company held the policy of £2OO over the stock, etc.

F. Badcock showed that he unsuccessfully dunned Homes at the Geraldine races for £2 16.5, and was not yet paid. J. Scott, accountant to Wood, Shand, * & Co., Christchurch, showed a debt to his firm for £63 16s 2d on a dishonored note, overdue at the time fire, and a further debt of £8 or £9. Alfred Caro proved a debt of £57 to D. Caro <& Co., wine and spirit merchant, Christchurch, for goods supplied for the Timaru and Geraldine races. He liad dunned Homes repeatedly, as the terms were half cash and half in a month. AIL he got was promises and a post-dated cheque for £2O, which was dishonored, and £5 got from Homes at the Geraldine races. After the fire Homes promised to pay as soon as he got settled with the insurance company. (Laughter.) A. Gabites, draper, Timaru, stated Homes came to him for clothes after the fire, and gave in payment an order on the insurance company.

D. M. Ross, Deputy Official Assignee, showed that Homes became a bankrupt in October, 1888, and got his discharge in August, 1890. There was no surplus for him,

J. H. Glasson, auctioneer, bought twohorses /rom him for £lO a week or two before the fire. They were seized by the bailiff on a suit against Homes, but given up again.

Constable Willoughby, bailiff at Geraldine, proved the issue of distress warrants against Homes for £4 15s and £ll 15s. The last was not paid yet.

To Mr White : Examined the house after the first fire, and after inquiry reported that he was of opinion it was caused by a defective chimney. Later on saw the chimney taken down to the gathering, and the expert who took it down deolared there was no defect in it. Had a different opinion now as to the cause of the fire.

N.Dunlop proved a debit of 7s 6d at the lime of the fire. It was still unpaid. To Mr White : As to Homes' reputation, never heard anything bad of him. Mr Martin : Has lie any reputation at all ?—I never heard him spoken of in Geraldine. He has a bad reputation outside Geraldine. His Honor to Mr White : If you call that sort of evidence that ia a risk you run.

Alfred Fisher, agent for the L.L. and G. Insurance Company at Geraldine, received a proposal from Homes. Went to value the stock and furniture. Found a large stock for such a place, and a lot of furniture and clothing, Valued them at £240, and recommended the risk as safe for £2OO.

To Mr White: Actually valued the contents at £277, There seemed to be a deal of clothing. James A. Bird, agent at Christchurch for the insurance company, described the steps taken for issuing the policy, which was endorsed by the Brewery Company. After the lire Homes brought in a list of goods lost, and witness asked for more detail. Homes brought in a detailed list, and witness never saw him again. The claim had not been paid. A claim was made for a fire in November, and that had not been paid either. There was no refusal to pay, but the second fire took place before it could be paid. No formal claim had been made for the money.

I. G. Maddison, building inspector and valuer for the insurance company; Was at ■ Hilton after the first fire, and made a rough valuation of the things in the house. Valued everything at £25, including clothing. W. Berry and Jas. Blyth repeated their former evidence. The latter said when he visited the hotel Just after the first fire he valued the stock in the bar at £l2 to £ls, and the furniture at £SO at the outside. Margaret Campbell, a domestic servant, who left the hotel a week before the first fire, repeated her evidence. In crossexamination she said Mrs Pearce brought with her the things she took away. Mrs Homes went to Timaru to be near the doctor. Could not remember Mrs Pearce complaining of smoke coming into her bedroom next the chimney. Plaster fell down the kitchen chimney pretty often. Sometimes coals fell out of the grate over the fender on to the floor. Wood was burned in the tap room. The yatness recollected a few articles not named in the list - a hand sewing machine and work basket, and a tin box. There were some jars in the house, but she did not know what they contained. They were not moved while she was in the house. Mrs Jane Constable also repeated her evidence. Robert Morgan, batcher, Timaru, one of the signatories to the certificate attached to the inventory, which expressed the belief that the claimant for '’"'insurance had by misfortune only suffered the loss claimed for, admitted that he had not read what he was signing. Homes told him he had to get two names : he had one already, and asked witness to sign for the other and he did so, without giving any thought of what it was all about. 0. G. Bradley, storekeeper, who assisted to put out the first fire out, said it was all outside the house, between the weatherboards and the studs. There was no fire inside the room, nor any sign of fire in the taproom chimney. This closed the case for the Crown, and the Court adjourned at 10.6 p.m., till 10 a.m. next day, the jury being locked up for the night. Wednesday, Feb. 10. The court resumed at 10 a.m., when the case'for the defence was opened by Mr White, who outlined the evidence he would lead. The first witness was J. Albert, saddler, of Geraldine, who related a conversation with Ineson after the second fire, in which Ineson spoke of Homes owing him £2O, and he would “ make it hot for him ” if he was not paid ; he said the fire was very auspicious, and, using some very strong language, said Homes was a fool. Dr Lovegrove proved that Mrs Homes was ill and under his daily care from 10th October to end of November. She was still very ill when she went away in November. The accused being sworn detailed the steps he took in effecting the insurance in 1891. The agent went all over the house, and was there two or three hours.

From what he saw and from his knowledge

of the premises had no doubt the fire L started from the chimney. There had ’ been bees nested at the back of the chimney and they had worked the mortar loose. Constable Willoughby was of the same opinion after examining it. It could not have started inside, Maggie Campbell had complained of plaster and soot coming down and choking the flues. Had to get it cleaned two or three times. When Berry and another came to examine the chimney, they put a knife in the cracks and worked them through into the chimney. Mrs Pearce complained of smoke in the upper room, in fact it was stained with smoke, that escaped at the gathering. On the night of the second fire went to bed at 10.30 to 11, and he and Ineson shut up. Bead for about an hour in bed, and then put out the light and went to sleep. Was awoke by a cry of “ Fire,” and then a crash of glass, and recognised Ineson’s voice calling “ Get out Homes. Get out Homes.” The witness then told what occurred after having discovered the the place on fire, and went on to say it was not true that he went into Ineson’s room and told him he had fired it. He never offered him £2O to say nothing. Had everything in the house when Mr Caro except claret. Had three barrels ™of beer in and two of them were saved. (Mr Caro had stated he called for various liquors arid they were all “ out ” ; and a glass of beer was only got by tilting a cask. After the fire, got his wife to t make out a second list, and the one he *gave to Mr Bird was copied from one made by his wife. He told Mr Bird he did not know the values of the household things. Mr Baggs, of Baggs and Duffy, pnt the prices to the items on the list. He would have put higher prices himself. The things saved were valued by Mr Glasson, too high, at £lO. Told the agent he would give £1 for the salvage and the goods taken to Timaru. Had an accident after Geraldine races. Slipped his kneecap, and could not go about to collect accounts, and that was why he had no money when Mr Caro called. Had £6O or £7O owing to him now. Besides those books debts and the few things saved from the fire, had nothing in the world. Had removed nothing from the hotel except a few tilings sent for his wife’s use-~-perhaps ■worth, £6 and expected to be brought back again. In cross-examination by Mr Martin he k said the business belonged to his wife, [ “although it was carried on in his name. There was £6O or £7O due to him. Had 1 had the bailiffs in, but that was over a. disputed account, which his wife said she would not pay. The monthly bills due to the Crown Brewery were paid. He had the butt of his wife’s cheque book to show it. (Mr Martin produced a bunch of dishonoured bills.) Did not notice in Mr Parson’s evidence that not one ot the bills had been paid. Had wished to sell the hotel since last July, but had not succeeded. Thomas Johnson, butcher at the freezing works: On the 19th November after Homes’ arrest met Ineson casually m • Timaru. Had a conversation about Homes, Ineson said, “ I’m one of the principal witnesses against Homes. Had ,/Harry acted right to me £2O would have \ glared it. And he was owing me two or three weeks wages. He promised to meet me at the Orari railway station, and as I had to hire a horse, and not being in a f good position to do so, and Homes not coming down according to promise, I felt very much annoyed. I got a glass or two pf drink into me, and I let it all out.

It's gone too far now, and I feel very sorry for Mrs Homes and the family, but not so for Homes." That was all that passed about it.

To Mr Martin: Went to the gaol and saw Homes at the latter's request. Did [ net remember anything that passed between them, except " How do you do ?" Did not write down the long conversation with Ineson ; had retained it in his memory. W. Healey (recalled, Saw Homes leave for Winchester on the sth October between 9 and 10 o'clock. The fire was a little after 11. Helped to put that fire \ out. It was right behind the chimney, | between two studs and the weatherboards. Was called to the second fire about 6 o'clock. Saw Ineson, who told him that he was very near smothered and he did not know how it happened ; that he had been wakened by a strange noise, got up and opened the door, when the smoke drove him back; there was a fire escape in the next room, but he was afraid to go to it, and got out of the window, using the bed clothes as a rope which broke when he was near the ground. That he then went round to Homes's window and broke it in and roused Homes, who came out, and then went back for a few clothes ; next they tried to get things out of the bar, and Ineson said he got into the titting room. Heard him make the same statement to other neighbours who came. Asked him how it was the smoke woke him, as it usually put people to sleep, and Ineson said it must have been the noise. Later on Ineson said there was monev to be made out of it; if they could convict Homes there would be a reward ; that Livingstone said so, and mentioned £2O or £25. Ineson said that he would not split if Homes paid him; that Homes had offered him £2O to say nothing about it, and if he got that he would leave New Zealand. Ineson said that Homes had as much as told him that he (witness) knew something about the first fire, that he (Homes) believed witness was paid to watch Homes, and that if witness liked to work with him they might get £2O to £25 apiece out of it. Replied that he didn't think much of a job of that kind, and asked if he kn3W enough himself to convict Homes. Ineson said he thought he did, but two could do it better than one; as that would be only man against man. Ineson said he would sooner take Homes's money, and it would be less trouble. Advised him to go and see Homes, and offered to lend him a trap to go to Timaru. Ineson tried to get a horse and could not. Ineson asked if witness would work with him or not, and he put him off. Witness came in to see Mr Homes about it. Fred. Worner, butcher, Geraldine: \\ as at the house after the first fire, and going upstairs saw smoke from the kitchen fire coming up from somewhere below , in the room. Jas. Cunningham, carter: Took a load ot furniture and packed goods to the hotel from Messrs Pearce's, a good load. B. Shakey, another carrier: Took two loads of stuff from the Timaru racecourse to the hotel. , , I M. de H. Duval, architect: Had heard I the evidence respecting the chimney. In his opinion the experts examined could not tell, from the examination they made, whether the chimney was secure. Alfred White, re-called, stated the chimney in question was still standing. No joists or timbers had been let into it. This closed the evidence for the defence Mr White's address occupied 50 minutes, Mr Martin's 35, and His Honour's summing up about 35, and at 2 p.m. the jury retired to consider their verdict. They were not as long absent as was expected, and in half an hour found a verdict of guilty. On being asked had he anything to say, the prisoner said : Nothing exceot that I am innocent. Mr White urged a delicate wife and her children were dependent oi the prisoner, and suggested that he might be dealt with under the Probation Act. His Honor said : It is impossible to take that into consideration in such a,' case. The sentence of the court is 4 years' imprisonment with hard labor. CIVIL CASE. Alexander Eattray v. Samuel GreenClaim £250. This was an action in which the plaintiff claimed that the defendant be adduced specifically to perform a contract alleged to have been made between the plaintiff and the defendant (through Mr Moss Jonas as his agent), whereby the plaintiff purchased the defendants' farm at Deep Creek, near Waimate, for the sum of £4789 2s 6d. The plaintiff also claimed £250 damages for the defendants' non-performance of agreement. The defendant pleaded that Mr Jonas was not his agent to make the contract, that the contract had not been made, and that there was no binding agreement within the Statute of Fraud. Mr White for plaintiff, Mr Raymond for defendant.

The case had not concluded when our reporter left.