TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 36, 11 February 1905, Page 3

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

The accused gave evidence tiis ay-ny Hl.C'. His statement was to the efiWi. that, being in finann:il di«!cult:es .-iici in danger of being sold Up. lie consilU-rd thp. mortgagee's solicitor at Auckland (Mr ,f. W. Stewart), who advised lizsii to transfer- the property to fiirp in trust till he recovered solvency. Being unwilling t.o trust a stranger, witness asked if bis brother would do 'instead. and Mr Stewart agreed provided a certain sum were found to pay oil' arears. Witness discussed the point with his brother. who agreed. His brother's statement that the? transfer was in consideration of a debt of nearly £200 was all imagination. He did not owe his brother the sum? .stated. It was true that Ims brother backed a promissory note, but not that lie paid it off out of his own pocket. Witness himself gave liis hrol.her JB4O with whk-h to pay it off, and it whs only recently that be dis; (tovered thai only £23 of this money reached the holder of the note. When the time came for him to ask his brother to transfer the property hack again his brother said, "Oh, uo, 1 won't do that, birt I'll halve it with yon.' They had some hot words ove>r it, and witness accused his brother of a breach oi trust. After some dSys' consideration witness concluded that it might be best in the end to accept his brother's offer, and the agreement in rfisputft was therefore, written, out by witness in the diningroom in the presence of liis brother Robert and his sister. His father read it and signed it, and tfie siatpr consent- ! e«i to take charge of it. For-want of spare moarr the agreement was left in abeyanw. till 1904, when his brother be,<naic a draagreearbie idlenr to work with aim! witness proposed a partition of the property so thai they might work sepaiirately. His brother said the place was Hot worth dividing, and asked how much he wanted for his shaxc. 'Witness said £135, and his brother agreed to purchase. Payment, however, ■was constantly deferred, and finally his brother showed that he, was not going to pay if he eoaM get ont of it. and defied witneßS to do his best. After a long- search for t.li« agreement the sitter remembered where she had put it. and it. was found in a tin box in the room where lie and his brother had been sleeping. The agreement wa.n taken to witness' solicitors, uv\ Out brother was asked to settle, but the brother repudiated the agreement, which he said was forged. Soon afterwards witness was arrested u-rul charged with foTgery. Mrs Elizabeth Evans, wife of the ac oiiied. specking of the- original transfer &bout ten years ago. said Robert told her George had transferred the property to him "till (teerge got. orut of his jliffivulties."' She frequently saw George pay iiwxiey to Robert. She remembereid the lmvkißie of the agreement. Robert was the first to mention it. I 1*» told ht>r they had 'come to azi ajrrangie-fn ent to divide the plecr. and thai George wanted the, bottom half, but he would only agree to give him the top. An agreeincnt was accordingly drawn up iv hor presence- George han«i«d it to Robert, who said it was all right. Georpe asked him to sign it, and Robert did so. The agreement now produced was Mc one they the.ii prepared. iu>d the signature, "Robert MrtC3onn«ll." on it was certainly in Robert's handwriting. The agreement lay on the table for a few minutes, and then they askexl her to take charge of it. Last October George aeked for this agreement, and she told him he wwuld find it in the tin box. Mrs Jemima McConnell, a very old lady, the mother of the parties, gave evidence which corroborated that of tbe daughter Elizabeth. George did most of the work on the place, which was the home of them ail, and he also contributed ntoet to keeping tee ham* going.

Robert himself told her that George wanted him to transfer the propertyback, but be would not agree, but wm going to give him the top half. Itotwrt ,!McConrie.ll. re-called, denied absolutely that he had any conversation with his sister about dividing the property. Addressing the jury on behalf of the accused, Mr Peacock put forward the theory that, having got legal possession of the property, Robert was reluctant to part vritb it, and when he was pressed to do so he got his brother arrested [ for perjury in order to ruin his charae- | ter and make, it impossible for him to pursue his legal remedy. After Mr Steadman had replied, Hie Honor summed up, and said this was a most lamentable and extraordinary 1 ta-i?. It iras exceedingly lamentable Jto find one brother prosecuting another !on h charge of forgery. By no way of ' renr.onins could it be conceived t.o be i the duty of'a brother to take such a ' step as this. It might, by an extreme j view, be hold to be hi? duty to inform the police, bu£ in tbn cape they found I Robert McConnell initintm.fi; a prosecn- '■ Uon and retaining a solicitor at very {Treat expense to conduct th<" ease and [•wing hii'i 'ley,-n htTc from VVhangarei to press th« r;>so in every possible way his brother. Presumably it was at. his expense; certainly he hoped i. wns not at the expense <.r the Slate. In all His 11' nor's experience in a court of law ht , Vuid never bf f ore v "mi such a pree. oti the ]irrt of o-:e bri i l op ap inst wmi'ior. pv.) lie ':i;r>ed '"■ ' - op. to ii a'»-i". It corf, inly •' •■ !v" v groi't spite f-n t'e p-irt of t c pi , i-aif-'ov ) and a '. '" ~r-n !!? int'-n----ti v. in • -t to cru.s- !■) ivnOirr in to civ.! Pvif \v" ich w?s p: " 117. nd t 1 t ciri." , nee rivsfc undoubedly m'e the jury view >'-c action of the j prosecutor with a very considerable j amount of suspicion. The ?tory which j the accused man Coerce Jv'cConnell had i told in the witnrss box was, he could i confidently ensure the jury from his judicial experience, an exceedingly probable -one. and one borne out by the documents mid by the stovy of their preparation. Ife Urc\ absolutely no ho<\I tnt-iOTi hi ieltinsi the j>i'y that Ikj thuugliT the prisoner ousht to br , Irjuittod.----j Thr jury, ■•without retiring, found the pnvi-iP)- not guilty, and he was dis-