People v. Scott

KERRIGAN, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of arson of the second degree and sentenced to imprisonment* in the state prison for the period of ten years. This is an appeal from the judgment and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The fire occurred on the third story of a building situated at No. 25 Third street in San Francisco on February 21, 1909, shortly after 1 o ’clock, in the afternoon. For some time prior to that date one Miss Williams conducted a shorthand and typewriting school in rooms situated upon said third floor, and the defendant was the manager of the school and an instructor under Miss Williams. It is conceded that a portion of the premises was burned and that the fire was of incendiary origin; but the defendant contends that the verdict convicting him of the crime of arson is not sustained- by the evidence. We have carefully examined the record with a view to determining this point, and are constrained to hold that the evidence is sufficient.

The theory of the prosecution was that the defendant set fire to the premises in order to enable Miss Williams to collect on her policy of insurance. Evidence was introduced showing a close and strong friendship between defendant and Miss Williams. On the subject of the fire itself two painters, who were at work painting on the third floor of the building, testified that the defendant was there as late as 12:45 P. M., which was shortly before the discovery of the fire, although defendant claimed that he left there an hour earlier. Another witness who knew the defendant testified that when the fire-engines and other fire apparatus were being hurried to the scene of the fire, the defendant was at a point within two blocks of the place and going away from it. The defendant on the other hand testified that at that time and for half an hour prior thereto he was a mile away, taking luncheon with Miss Williams and another woman. When Miss Williams insured the furniture and equipment of the" school

[303]

originally and again when she increased the amount of her policy, the defendant was present and took an active part in the transactions; yet after the fire he disclaimed to the fire marshal having any. knowledge at all on the subject of her insurance, and in an investigation into the origin of the fire, the defendant, in order to account for his whereabouts from the time he claimed to have left the building until he arrived at Larkin and Ellis streets for luncheon, stated that he had an engagement with one W. P. Berrill, and that he walked to the place of appointment at Seventh and Howard streets, and failing to find Berrill that he walked from there to Larkin and Ellis streets. Berrill, however, testified that he had no engagement with the defendant on that day. Other circumstances in the case pointing to the guilt of the defendant are that although it was desired that the painted portions of the third story should dry as quickly as possible, so that a session of school might be held on Tuesday, February 23d, the defendant, against the advice of the painters, ordered the window curtains drawn, the windows left open six inches from the bottom, the inner doors open and the outer doors- locked. Immediately after the fire a certain book was found on the defendant’s desk, with a leaf turned down at a part of the book entitled, “How to collect insurance.”