THE WELLINGTON SENSATION.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 327, 20 July 1889, Page 2

THE WELLINGTON SENSATION.

The “ Kaiwarra sensation ” has been greatly colored by the conviction of Chemis and the death of Mr Bunny, the solicitor who defended him. Though it is wise not to be influenced by the sympathy whioh a certain class of peopl® al-vays show when criminals are brought to bay, the circumstances in this case are so exceptional that to our mind it would have been better to give the prisoner the benefit of the slender evidence. To show the nature of the case, the following letter to an Auckland paper gives very much the same circumstances. The report of the Kaiwarra murder case, in which corresponding fragments of an old newspaper have formed an important part in completing a chain of evidence against the accused, recalls to my mind a somewhat similar case whioh took place in Auckland about sixteen years ago. An alarm of fire was raised one night in Shortland Street, when' some matter was found burning under the grating in ths basement of Must and Co.'s premises. The fire was soon extinguished, but the young man who raised the alarm, by hie subsequent proceedings, rendered himself liable to suspicion, and bo was arrested for attempted arson, But the case did not appear a very strong one agsinst accused until a stonemason employed in rebuilding the post office picked up amongst some masonry being worked within the hoarding a bundle of rags and paper that appeared to have been saturated with kerosene. This bundle he handed to Detective Jeffrey, then doing duty in Auckland, The detective examined the contents of the bundle, and afterwards made a search on the premises where the young fellow had resided. He afterwards produced in the Police Court a piece of cotton print and an old dress from which it bad be torn. He further showed a piece of a recent New Zealand Herald taken from the bundle, and the corresponding remainder of the newspaper, which he found in the house of the father of the accused, also an old lamp wick and an old lamp in the house, without a wick. This strengthened the ease considerably, and the accused was committed for trial accordingly. The motive for the offence was presumed to be for the purpose of raising an alarm, getting the incipient fire suppressed, and a reward to himself from the insurance company for having saved them from a considerable loss. The evidence at the trial at the Supreme Court appeared very strong against the accused, and I was a wilness myself to the effect that immediately after the fire, and again afterwards, he had importuned me, in my capacity of a newspaper reporter, to recommend that a reward should be granted to him. But in the defence, Mr W. L- Rees, who appeared for the accused, o died a female servant of the house where the lad dwelt, and she deposed on oath—and her testimony was in no way shaken under the skilful crossexamination of Mr Brookfield, the Crown Prosecutor, that Detective Jeffrey had called on her, and asked her to make up a bundle from the articles produced, which she had done, and handed to a strange man, whom she asserted had called for it at the detective's directions. This woman was known to have been instrumental some time previously in assisting the police to obtain a conviction for specimen stealing, which had been largely carried on previously at the Thames goldfields. Detective Jeffrey was recalled, and flatly contradicted the woman’s evidence, but whether she or the detective spoke the truth, the jury found the prisoner “ Not guilty,” In referring to these circumstances, I have no desire to cast any reflections on the polios engaged in the late case; my only desire is to state facts, and show how very carefully circumstantial evidence should be accepted, especially in such cases where the life of a fellow creature is at stake.