The Express.
London, England, 1868-07-11 00:00:00

Czowa Siam

KITRAOIIIDINART CABE OF Anew&
John Monk, 18, and John Seville, 17, two respectable-
looking country lads, were charged with maliciously and
feloniously setting fire to a malting, two barns, a stable,
and other buildings, valued at 1,6001., the property of
William Stacey Spencer and another.
Mr. Clarke prosecuted. The prisoners were unde-
fended.

The circumstances of this case were very remarkable.
The prosecutor was a farmer and =dieter, currying on
his business at Albury, and the prisoner Saville had
been employed by him, and was in his service at
the time of the tire, and they were on very good
terms, and there did not appear to be the
slightest motive for the crime that was imputed to the
prisoners. The offence was committed on the evening of
the 23rd of February, and it appeared that about 10
o'clock on that night an alarm of fire was raised, and the
malting was found to be in flames, and before the confla-
gration was extinguished nearly 400 quarters of malt
were consumed, and other property destroyed, amounting
altogether to more than 1,6001. At first it appeared that
no suspicion whatever was entertained of either of the
prisoners, and Saville continued at his work as usual, and
it was not until nearly a fortnight afterwards that infor-
mation was obtained by the police which led to the appre-
hension of the prisoners. A young man named Dednem
then came forward and stated that he was with the pri-
soners at a beershop kept by a man named Rogers, about
a mile from the prosecutor s farm, and he walked home
with them on the night of the tire, and as they
were going along, Saville said that he meant to have
a-- good blaze before ho went home. lhalnem
left them, and very soon afterwards the fire
broke out. The prisoner Saville was apprehended by
Mr. Ryder, an inspector of the Ilerts constabulary, at Ins
father's house. He was in bed at the time, and when h.:
paw the officer he tried to hide himself under the bed
clothes, and upon his being taken into cei,tiely and told
what he was charged with he began to cry, and said that
he was not going to be blamed for it all. Ile then told the
Aker that on the night of the fire he and Monk and
Redness went away from the becrshop together, and they
were all smoking. A fter Ded nem lef t them le: sai.l that Menk
lighted a lucifer match and put it into the timid' of the
malting and set it on fire, and when he had done to he
threw the box of lucifer matches into a pond clo,e by. lie
said that when they parted Monk said to him, " Bute t
a fool and say I did it," and he then ran away home.
The prisoner Saville observed that he knew he war us
bad as Monk, although ho had not done it himself. The
prisoner Monk was afterwards apprehended, and when he
was taken to the police station at Bishops Stortford he
also made a statement to the effect that OA they were
walking home from the beerehop, Saville said that he
would have a—good blaze before he went home, and that
he threw a lighted lucifer match close to a clover stack,
and he cautioned him to be careful. The prisoner Monk
said that after this he went into a field and he saw his
companion Saville go up to the malting and set fire to it
with a lucifer match. When the prisoners were underexa-
mination before the magistrates they both declared that they
were innocent, and each threw the blame of the transaction
upon the other. There was this additional piece of
evidence in the case, that the prisoners appeared to have
taken a box of lucifer matches from the- beershop where
they bad been during the evening, and this box was found
floating in a pond close to the Beene of the conflagration.
When the prisoners were called upon for their defence
they both replied, "I did not do it; I know nothing more
about it than I said before."

Mr. Justice Willes, on summing up the case, said it was
certainly one of a very remarkable character, and if the
jury should think that the offence was only committed by
one of the prisoners, but they were unable to say which
of them, it would be their duty to say that they were not
guilty. If, on the other band, they should be of opinion
that, although the act of setting fire to the premises was
only the act of one, but that the other concurred and
encouraged him to do it, they would then, in the eye of
the law, both be guilty of the offence imputed to them.
The jury, after a very short deliberation, found both
the prisoners Gotilty.
Mr. Justice Willes, in passing sentence, said that they
had been convicted of a very heinous offente„ and there
was this aggravation in the case of the prisoner Saville,
that he had destroyed property belonging to his master to
an enormous amount, without the slightest motive or pro-
vocation. If they had been grown up men, he should
certainly have passed upon them the extreme punishment
fixed by the law for this description of offence, and, not-
withstanding their youth, it appeared to him that it would
be a very dangerous thing indeed if a judge, sitting in his
position, could be supposed to treat such a crime as one of
a venial character, under any circumstaneca. Ile then
sentenced Saville to be kept in penal servitude for ten,
and Monk for seven years.
The prisoners, who by their conduct and demeanour
during the trial were evidently hardened young ruffians,
were then removed from the bar laughing.