SUPREME COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 373, 15 July 1874, Page 6

SU PREM E COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTING.

Monday July 6. (Before,; His Honor Mr Jmtic« Chapman, and a Petty Jury )

ARSON. John Jenkins was charged with having set fir* to the dwelling of John Dpuoghue, at Waihola, on the 31st May. Mr. K. Cook and Mr Taylor tor the prisoner. The evidence of Catherine Donogbue, prosecutor's wife, and ©f William Hayes, mason went to show that on the day named, while Donoghue's wife, Hayes, and the prisoner were drinking and talking in the prosecutor's house, the prisoner, without any apparent reason, there having previously been no quarrel or disagreement whatever, raised a candle until the light touched the thatched portion of the building, and then said, "I'll burn you bb — — s out." Another witness, named CHalmer, stated that when be arrived on the scene he heard the prisoner remark that " that was the only way to get rid of them ;" but, according to the evidence of Hayes, the prisoner afterwards attempted to extinguish the tire by throwing water on it. His efforts, however, •were of no avail, for the building, being conatucted of light and easily consumed materials, was soon burned to tho ground, and Donoghue's two children, who were in bed, | were rescued by Hayes only just in time to save them from injury. ' Mr Taylor, for the defence, pointed out that the prisoner had no motive whatever to set fire to the building. He o1o 1 aimed it as his own. Had the prisoner wanted to destroy the building be could have done so, with a good ohance of escaping detection, ; by setting fire to it from the outside, instead of going into the hnuae where there was a light and company assembled, and then wilfully setting fire to the thatched portion. They were all drinking, and the fire was evidently the result of an accident. Moreover, had the prisoner intended to burn down the house he would not have attempted to extinguish the flames by throwing water over them, as it had been stated in evidence he endeavored j to do. The threatening words alleged to have beenused were usedm coarse familiarity, aud not from vindictiveness. He aiso asked — if, as stated, the parties had beon drinking — whether the jury could place reliance on evidence adduced to show that the act of the prisoner was wilful, and not accidental Hefsubmitted that Mrs Donoghue knew the act was accidental, and that the charge was an after-thought. The evidence showed there was a doubb —a reasonable doubt — and the jury should give the prisoner the benefit of it.

The Crown Prosecutor, in addressing the jury to show that the aot of the prisoner was wilful, mentioned, among other things, that, even after the house had been set on fire, and after the children had been rescued, tht prisoner told Chalmers that " it was the only way to get rid of them " To establish the proposition, also, that the prisoner had some feeling" against Mrs Donoghue, he reminded the jury that the prisoner had remarked io Sergeant Smith that " she was a bad one." The jury after deliberating for an hour and a -half, returned a verdict of guilty against the prisoner, accompauied by a recommendation to mercy. The prisoner was remanded for sentence.