Alleged Arson.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 415, 11 February 1890, Page 2

Alleged Arson.

.lambs Hinton Topping was yesterday brought up on remand, charged with wilfully and maliciously, on the 7th inst,, sotting fire to a shed, the property of James Craig, baker, at the rear of premises in Gladstone Road, formerly occupied by the accused. The information was sworn by Thomas Roberta, who was the first to discover tha fire. The Police prosecuted, and Mr Rees defended,

Thomas Roberts deposed that on tho 6th instant he went to bed between 10.30 and 11 p.m. He was aroused ahortly after one o’clock by the sound at crackling, as if caused by fire. He looked through his back window, which was exactly opposite the shed which accused was accustomed to use as a lumbar room, and saw it illuminated, There ia no back door to his premises, but he unlocked the front door, and rushed round to the back and saw that the shed appeared to be on fire. He went inside and saw fire on the floor, and alia on some sugar bags and other rubbish on a rack some five feet from the ground. He saw accused standing by the fire looking at it, and said,' You scoundrel, you've set the place oq fire I’ The accused made no answer to this, and the witness went to call Mr Craig, who lives some 30 yards away. When he and Mr Craig came back, accused was standing out. aide the shed, by an old benoh. He stood there for some time while they were endeavoring to put out the fire, until he (Roberts) ordered him off. He then went away. When the fire had been partly extinguished Craig went for a policeman and witness stayed to put out the remainder of the fire. Craig ahortly afterwards came back with Murray and Thomson, and between them they put the fire all out.

Cross-examined by Mr Rees, the witness said be had sworn the information because his premises had been endangered. He denied that be was on bad terms with the accused, He had never said to Mrs Alexander Hird that accused should be put in a barrel and burned. He did not know Mrs Hird. He had not been trying to got Topping’s shooting gallery, because he had Una of hie own. He. had told Ledger that be intended to speak to Craig about the gallery, but he (Ledger) had poobpoohed the idea, and said that he was the only person who bad any right to be spoken to on the matter.

James Craig remembered being called on the 7th instant by Boberts, who battered on the weatherboards and told him he had better get up if he did not want to be burnt out. He. rushed out without dressing, and want to the ehed. Accused was standing outride, and appeared dazed and stupefied. He helped to, put out the fire. It was lighted in two places, and be did not think one was due tq thaoifier, He went away for a policeman, and cams back with Murray and Thompson. Accused had been a tenant ot his, but was ejected, and th* place nsjled qp a day or two before the fire, In cross-examination the witness said una fire might have caused the other so fa; as he knew. He had not given accused leave tc return to the premises, but ha found him there on the 6th and was loth to turn him away. He knew ot no motive the qocuseq could have had for setting the plaqs on fir*, except that he and Roberts might have been at loggerheads. It was quits possible that accused might have got up in the night tn find something to throw over himself to keen out ths cold. He might have struck a match and dropped it or threw it down without any bad intention. Among the burning stuff they found an old rug which was smouldering ano which had been in the abed. He had not asked Boberts to swear the information. Boberts did it of his qwn accord. As for him (Craig) he difa't know that he would hav* laid any information in tha matter. Other corroborative testimony being glveq the Benoh considered that a prims facie ease had been made out. The crime, it it amounted to such, was a vary serious one, and under the circumstances thay fall justiflaq in sending it for trial to a higher Quart. Bril was allowed, accused in $lOO and two sureties of £3Q each,