Brighouse & Rastrick Gazette. — 1888-01-28 (Brighouse, West Yorkshire, England)

TWENTY YEARS FOR ARSON.  On Saturday at the Old Bailey, before Mr. justiee Charles, the trial was concluded of Leon Serne and John Henry Goldfinch, on the charge of setting fine to the former s house in the Strand in September last.—Mr. Justice Charles, in summing up, referred to the fact that the prisoner had been tried and acquitted last session on the charge of wilful murder, the evidence on that charge being practically the SUm.. as in this case for arson. But was not for them to say wha.: was in the minds of the last jury. They were only trying the men on the charge of murder, and they had no power to reduce the charge to one of arson. They might, for anything the present jury knew, have thought that the prisoneve did not set fire to the place, but they were not asked to pass judgment on such a point because it wee not referred to them. Or, they might have though, that they did, or that one of them did, cause tha fire, but that they shrunk from the terrible conclusion that they had the intent to destroy the lives of SernCe two boys. Therefore, it was for the present jury to decide independently altogether of the previous inquiry, whether the two prisoners, Of either of them, committed the crime of arson. His lordship then went through the evidence, pointing out the pecuniary difficulties of Serne% and hie getting his things over-insured. There was the strongest possible motive for Sermi doing wrong, A wrong he did. He was without a shilling in the world, he had no money to pay pressing debts, he had a bill of sale on everything he possessed in the world, including goods he had got on credit, and there was a half-year's rent which would accrue in the course ef a few days. The motive was obvious, and it would be for the jury to say whether tho facts fitted with that motiv e. In regard to the extreme facility with which Serie- seemed tcvhave been able to effect an insurance on things now, sworn to have been of very little value, his lordship could not help saying that the insurance company's valuer appeared to have made a very cursory inspectien„. If there was more than one fire then the matter was more than one of suspicion. If there was only one, and which was tbe mesult of accident then they had not a single attempt at an explanation of such peebible accident. He carefully distinguished between the evidence relating to Sernii and Goldfinch. There was mates sal evidence against both, but he must confess that the evidence against Goldfinch was exceedingly slender, and they must be careful not to -convict him merely on suspicion.—The prisonfr Serpd, by consent of the judge, addressed the jury in regard to his looking after the . house in New Oxford-street, and his having placed certain inflammable materials in the cellar, in both of which he said he acted with perfect boredfidrs.—After an absence of fio minutes, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty against Sernet, and not guilty against Goldfinch.—The court was then informed that Semi, had several times been convicted of various‘offences in Amsterdam, and had been aloe tried and convicted in that court on a charge of false pretences and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. --The sentence on Sernt; was now 20 years' penal servitude