THE LATE CASE of ALLEGED INCENDIARISM AT CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1640, 9 January 1883, Page 2

THE LATE CASE of ALLEGED INCENDIARISM A T CAMBRIDGE.

The * unfortunate l > i; maW> 'James Murphy, recently arrested by the .police v at Cambridge on a charge of having attempted to burn down the premises of Mr^ Geo. Dickinson', bookseller and' stationer, Cambridge, on Thursday morning last, was brought up at the Resident Magistrate's Court, Cambridge,morning, before Mr T. Wells, J.l\ The information laid against the accused charged him with having, ,on 5 the morning of Thursday last, unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously set fire to the premises of Mr Dickinson. The accused, who is a man o£i cultivated/intellect, appeared in Court in a very exhausted condition, and looked very much in need 'of medical aid. On entering the box he earnestly enquired if His Worship was making out his death t warrant. „ Constable JBrennan conducted' the 'case on behalf of the police, and. Murphy was represented by Mr Dyer. The evidence went to show that accused was< discovered, by a man named Hassett, sitting in the passage between Mr" Bond's and Mr Dickenson's premises about 4.15 on the morning in question, with a billy by his side. Hassett inquired ; what he was doing there, <to which he replied "there's no harm, I want to make sonic tea." He had been .sitting sleeping, with his feet to the fire, and looked very stupid— in fact did not seem, to know what he was about. Hassett did not put out the tire, but immediately- woke up Mr Dickinson, whom he informed of the matter, and who extinguished the fire. Has&ett further believed that had he not discovered the fire when he did, the whole of Duke-street would have hecn burned. While he was rousing Mr Dickinson, Murphy decamped. Constable Brennan, who was immediately informed of the matter, arrested Murphy at the kick of Gillett's hotel. He (Murphy) had a billy in his hand at the time, and when the tire was mentioned to him he pleaded ignorance, and said (he had never been down the town that morning. gThis statement was, however, contradicted by a witness named Robert Tukere, who deposed to having seen accused about the time the tire was noticed on Thursday morning at his whare behind Mr Whitaker'a office. Mr Dickinson valued his stock-in-trade at £600, and the premises, which were leasehold, at £300. 'Had all been burned he would have been a loser to the extent of about £1000. During the hearing of the evidence accused repeatedly interrupted the Court with the assertion that it was needless to go on with such formal nonsense, as* he would die within four hours' time ; in fact, he said, his whole inside had been taken out, and how did they expect he would live after that. Mr Dyer, in commenting on the case, thought the Court would find that the charge laid against the prisoner accused him of having "maliciously, feloniously, and unlawfully " set fire to certain premises. He would draw His Worship's attention to the fact' that by the intoi matiou before the Court, as well as under the Malicious Damage to Property Act, the act ot the peison accused must be committed with malicious and felonious intent. Admitting that the evidence as produced was true and correct, no evidence had been produced to show that the action of the prisoner was done with a malicious or felonious intent. Had there been any malicious intent on the part of the accused, was it likely he would have sat down by the fire after he had kindled it, and waited thero uutd discovered? Nor was there any evidence to show that the accused had kindled the fire, though he was sitting beside it. Had he been brought up under the Vagrant Act as a drunkard, or had be beeu charged with being unlawfully on the premises, the case might have been better within comprehension. His Worship did not entirely hold with Mr Dyer. A person wat> always supposed to contemplate the natural effects of his own voluntary act. He would refer him to section 61, vol. 1, of Johnson's Justice of the Peaco, which was written especially fer the guidauce of magistrates in his position. Unless it were proved that the evidence was the outcome of a conspiracy against the accused, he had no alternative but to send him forward for trial to' tho Supreme Court. Accused, who reserved his defence, was accordingly committed to take his trial.