SUPREME COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10199, 29 March 1911, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

MASTERTON—TUESDAY.

(Before His Honor, Sir Robert Stout, C.J.)

IN BANKRUPTCY

Discharges from bankruptcy were granted to Robert H. Campbell (Hastwoll), George G. Cork (Mastcrton), Leonard A. N. Wilton (Masterton), Augustus E. Williams (Eketahuna), Fraser M. Ross (Mauriceville), William D. Ayson (late of Masterton), James Mckenzie (Mauriceville), Charles Gurote (Masterton), Albert Webb (Masterton). , _ Releases were granted the DeputyOfficial Assignee in thirty cases in which the Auditor-General had reported.

SENTENCES.Henry Walker, on a charge of housebreaking at Mangatainoka, to which he had pleaded guilty, asked for leniency on the ground that lie had been a victim of drink. His Honor said there were several previous convictions against the prisoner, who was evidently a victim of social customs. Prisoner would .be sentenced to twelve months' hard labour, and be declared an habitual criminal. If, at the end of twelve months, ho showed a' disposition to reform, he would bo released oh probation. John Jackson, who had pleaded

guilty to a charge of assaulting three i little girls at Pahiatua, stated that ' this was the first occasion upon which , he, had been .before the Court in any ' part world, and he attributed hii lapse to drink. * •.His Honor, stated that one r half of •the cases which came before him were : attributable to drink. Had tli9 accused been guilty of an offence against • only one child, he might have been liberated on probation. There were, how- ' ever three charges against him. Accused would be sentenced to twelve months' hard labour in the Wellington Terrace Gaol. j CHARGE OF ARSON.

A young man named ieo Barker was. charged with having, in March, 1909, set fire to ; a two-roomed cottage in Coekburn Street, Masterton, occupied by one Maggie Young; The following jury was empannelled: —Messrs H., P. Wynn-Williams (foreman), J. Betty, T: F. Denby, H. Wooding, P. L: Gully, A: 'Owen, G, Watson, W. Spackman, R. Crawford, A. H. Krahagen, L. Williams, and F. F.Day. Mr C. A. Pownall appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Bunny (Crown Prosecutor) briefly stated the circumstances of the case. - ■'.'■■

Edward Prague!!, a member of the Masterton Fire Brigade, deposed that on March 6th, 1909, in response to an alarm, he proceeded to Coekburn Street, where a two-roomed cottage was on fire. The building was gutted when he arrived on the scene. He was of opinion that it would cost £4O to reinstate the building. ■ .

By Mr Pownall: The building, was an old one, and he valued it, before the fire, at from .£ls to £2O. Maggie Young- deposed that 'n March. 1909, she was living in a tworoomed cottage in Coekburn Street. A man named Edelsten was living with her. On March 6th the house in which; she was living was destroyed by fire. JShe saw;two young men leaving the direction \qit the building;,/ On the evening qf, 6th she -was . proceeding to town, when Edelsten called her,.attention to: two young men -who were proceeding to Kuripuni on bicycles. , When she was in the library, her house took fire '. a rid she lost everything she possessed. Sue estimated her loss at between £25 and £3O.

By Mr Pownall: She was married to a Chinaman named Su Young. She admitted having sued her husband for maintenance and having then stated that she was without effects.

Henry Edelsten; who had been living jwith the last witness, stated that on the day of the fire two young men came to the cottage; One of these was Robert/ Andrews,. .and the other, hei, :thought was the accused. " He could; riot swear to the identity of the .ac- ! •cused; The young men asked for MrsYoung, and were told that she was out.i Oh the same evening, when he was; out with Mrs; Young, he saw the twoj young, men proceeding towards Kuri-i mini. He afterwards heard the firebell ring, and •learned that the cottage had been dw+rov«d. He had' lost £8 in notes bv the 'fire.' besides effect*. Bv Mr Po"'Hfill :■ Witness admitted serv*ed a term of imprisonment.' --•■."•'

Jasoei' G. Inpram deposed; ..that, he' was the landlord of the cottage which had been destroyed. Ho was receiving one shillincf per n-eek in.rent from Mrs Young.-' TT P voltMjd the Ivnlding at about £2O. Fe estimated that it would Cost him between £3O and £4O to re-erect. .;

Herbert Martin "Wilton.; telegrauh lineman, deposed that in March. IROOI he.wasj living in Oockburn Street. Tbo accused Barker bad been living with him. for about three, months nrior to March '6th: IWQ. The accused had an three or four occasions said bo would set'fire't'o the cottage occupied by Mrs Young. He said he did not want ;> place like that near where he lived;.

Witness told him not to rlo it, pointing out that ho would get into trouble if he did. On the evening of March 6th", the accused told witness he had ;-:ct fire to the building. Witness told him again that he was very foolish. Witness went out to feed his pigeons, and then discovered that the building was

ablaze. When accused said he had set the house alight, witness asked, "What alight?" The accused replied, "Mrs Young's building." Witness replied, "You must be mad!" By Mr Pownall: Accused had spoken j to witness several, times before the I fire about his intention. He said he would not have a house of ill-fame near where he lived. Witness did not go off his own property on the night of the fire. Witness did not tell his wife that he had assisted to' fire the house. He had not told the accused to throw a match into the box near the house. He had in no way assisted in the fire. Witness said nothing about the fire until about a year and nine months after the occurrence. The accused had come to Masterton to give evidence against witness in proceedings instituted by

solicitor, informed Constable Dunn. He was afraid that the accused wouldcharge'him with firing the building. He had heard threats. Witness had previously given information to ihe police concerning a hook on telephones -which he alleged the accused liad taken from his house. Constable Dunn , deposed that, on December 17th last, from information received he had interviewed the accused and asked him if he knew'anything about a fire at Mrs Young's. The accused stated that he did, and made a statement in which ho admitted having set fire to the building. This was the case for the prosecu.tion. ■

Mr Pownall, for the defence, said he would prove' that the builcßng did not come within the Crimes. Act, as.it was not-.attached to the soil. He would also show that, although accused admitted throwing o. match into a Box near the building, he did not. actually set fire to it.

Leo Barker, the accused, deposed that he had been living with Wilton for twelve or fifteen months. There was an old building within-a few chains of Wilton's place. Wilton had p fen urged witness to light it. On the night of the fire, witness went over to the building at the suggestion of Wilton, who started away with him. There was an empty box at the side of the building, and; he (accused) .threw a match into'it'. Tliere was nothing in the box. ' Witness saw.,the whare <on fire 'three-quarters of an hour later; Witness left Wilton to, watch, -but did not see him again for some time afterwards. . Witness le 1 ft for Wangaiiiii, but came back to give evidence on subpoena in a case between Wilton and his wife. Witness admitted having made a statement, to the police. He thought Wilton was making accusations against him, and he thought to "put his pot on." ••,' .

By Mr Bunny: Witness had not told the police that Wilton assisted in the fire, because he had not time to think.

John Joseph Kelliher, law clerk, deposed that he had, in company with Mr Cairns, on the previous day carefully examined the spot' where the building stood. There was no indication of piles, or holes in the ! grdtind where piles could hare been.' None of th© debris had been removed*

James Cairns, sanitary inspector, stated that'He had known the building prior to its destruction. It had .'no piles, and there were no indications of its'being fixed to the soil. ':; ' ,;

| Jasper C. Ingram, re-called, swore that the building destroyed, was standing on,piles. ','. •- ■:■-,.'

His Honor stated that iihe building was a .dwelling, whether, it had piles.or not. ■•• v.'v'•'■■■'.''"• ".' :■'••.' ; ' :'■''' :•■•:•': ••■'.

Counsel haying addressed the jury, His Honor summed up, strongly commenting on the action of. counsel for the defenco' in suggesting that Wilton .had assisted in. the firing of the house. The statement of the accused himself showed that. Wilton had nothing to do with the affair. His Honor said it was most improper for counsel to make the suggestion to the jury which had been made. This was the.first' occasion upon which he had to comment upon the action of counsel in such a case, Qiicl he-hoped it would be the last. The jury, after a retirement of forty, minutes, . returned a verdict of "Gruilty," but with a.'strong recdm-,' mendation to mercy. . His Honor said he quite agreed with the verdict. Had the accused .pleaded; guilty in the first place, he would pro-; bably have been treated as a first offender and liberated, on probation. As! it was; he would be remanded till next' day:to allow of the Probation Officer presenting a report.