RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CLYDE.

Cromwell Argus, Volume III, Issue 133, 28 May 1872, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CLYDE.

.Saturday, Mat 2"). (Before E. 11. Carew, Es'/., R.M. ; and James llaz.le.lt, Esq., J.P.) A special sitting of the Court was held, ii» accordance with adjournment, on the above date. The Court was opened at 11 a.m. CHARGE OF PERJURY. Robert Kidd, hotelkeeper, of Cromwell, was charged, on the information of John Francis, miner, Carrick Range, with having, on the 9th November last, .at Cromwell, been guilty of a misdemeanour, inasmuch as that he, "tb.3 said Robert Kidd, as a witness in the matter of Francis v. Kidd, did falsely swear that he had never sold any share or interest in the Star ot. the East Quart»uuniug Company, Registered,— he, the said Robert Kidd, at the same time knowing such evidence to be false, and knowing it to be material to the issue then being tried : and the Court in which such evidence was taken being a Court having jurisdiction to hear and decule upon the matter of complaint." Mr W. W. Wilson appeared in support of the information ; and Mr Brough defended the accused.

Mr Wilson, in opening the case, said the present charge arose out of a case tried before Mr Warden Pykc at Cromwell in November last, in which the present informant, John Francis, sued Robert Kidd, the present defendant, for a halfshare in the Star of the Fast chum, Carrick i?ange. The present information was that accused had, upon the hearing of such case, sworn that he had never sold any share in the Star of the East Company to the complainant or any other person, which evidence was contrary to fact, as he (Mr Wilson) would show. Mr Wilson then commented in strong terms on the common practice of perjury in every Court in the country, and the necessity which existed of an attempt being made to put down such a practice ; anil said the present proceedings had been instituted by Mr Francis with that view. He (Mr Wilson) had no doubt whatever that their Worships, after hearing tho evidence which he should bring forward, would concur in his view of the case, and commit the accused to take his trial before the Supreme Court iii Dunedin. The learned counsel then dwelt at some length upon the rules by which Magistrates were guided in dealing with the evidence in such cases.—Mr Wilson then called -John Francis.

Before this witness was sworn, however, Mr Bt;ough, While regretting the inconvenience to which they would be put, had to request that all ■the witnesses be ordered outside the Court. j The witnesses were ordered 'out of Court ae--1 eordingly.

John Eraneis, sworn, examined by Mr Wilson :—1 am a miner-, residing at Cromwell. I know the accused, .Robert Kidd. Anything whatever the two of us got in qUartz-reeting we were to is, if I discovered anything, he was to have half; if he got a share in any Way from any one, be Was to give me half of it ; and it was understood that we both should contribute to any share 'either of ts held. In conseeequence of information I received, 1 lodged a complaint against the accused, which complaint came on for hearing in the Warden's Court at Cromwell on the 9th November last, before Mr Vincent Pyke, then Warden at Cromwell. I produce a letter, now marked A by the Court, signed "W. B. Howe," and dated 16th Dec. 1870, which was produced in the Warden's Court at the hearing of the complaint referred to. 1 produce another letter, now marked B by the Court, signed by W. B. Howe, and dated 7th or 9th November 1870, which was also produced at the hearing of the complaint referred to. 1 recollect the accused having the oath administered to bun en the Holy Bible by Mr Vincent Pyke at the hearing of the complaint. 1 recollect those letters being produced on that occasion. 1 heard Mr Brough ask the accused if he had sold any share in the Star of the East claim, lie said no. 1 recollect Mr Wilson asking accused whether he had not directly or indirectly parted with any share or interest in it for £75, and ho said ha had not sold any share or any mining interest whatever. It became a question, in the hearing of that complaint, whether the accused was in funds up to that time for the purpose of payment of expenses on account of wages in the claim then in dispute. That proceeding was a corapkint instituted by me to compel accused t) transfer a share to me, on the ground of my being a partner with him in a certain mining venture cilled the Stir of the East Company. 0 Cross-examined by Mr Brough :—I recollect Mr Wilson asking him whether the share was still his. He answered, " The share is still mine, and inmy name." The reason it became a question as to whether accused had received £75 for the shire was that he, the accused, would hive been ii funds to pay my calls on the interest 1 was seeking for in the Stir of the East Company. I paid nothing in connection wilh that claim, lor did I ever ask accused to pay any thing f>r me in connection with that claim. V.' the accused had purchased a share I would not have expected any interest in it; nor had 1 boughtone, would the accused have been entitled to any share in it. It is about two years since 1 left the Cromwell district, and my intention was then to clear ottfc the country altogether. 1 remember your asking the accuse 1,either before or after Mr Wilson, I am not sure which--" Did you part with any of your interest in the Star of the East claim ?'"' lam not sure whether you used the words " Did you sell anv interest?" or " Did yon part with aiiv interest'/'' I won't swear that the accused said he had not parted with his share in the Star of the East, but I know the words "twelvemonths" were used. I recollect that the words "twelve months''were used in connection with ike sale of the share. Mr Howe, on being examined in the Wardens Court, stated that he had written the letter marked A without instructions from the accused. When I left Cromwell 1 intended to have gone to California. I had disposed of all my mining interest before leaving, tiverythiii" with regard to mining partnership between ■«<> cased ml myself at that time was squared up before I left.

Re-examined:^-It v,ms in conserpience of Hone telling me tint there was a Half-share left me that 1 returned. 1 think it was in Apiil IS7I that I returned, —about five months after I got the letter. Although accused may have sworn tint he had not said any interest within twelve months, I still adhere to my statement that he said he had tevet sold.

[ln the letters referred to in the foregoing cvideuce, the following statements occur :--'' Mr Kidd lias let you half his share, and as soon as you can manage it you are to get half of mine ; that is what Mr Kidd proposes to do." " With' regard 11 orr reef, .... Kidd has sold half a sha'e for £7.V] 15. R Baird, Clerk of the Warden's Court at Cromwell, was called, and produced the complaint laid in the Warden's Court by John Francis, on the 19th October 1871, against Robert Kidd.

DuncanMacKellar, teacherj examined : --1 was umpire in an arbitration matter between (!eor-'e Fauvel and accused. [The witness, addressing the Bench, said that any knowledge he possessed as to the matter before the Court was gained through his hiving acted as umpire in the arbitration case referred to, and he declined to produce any document connected with the arbitration unless the Court compelled him to do so. | Mr Wilson objected to the witness being protected or privileged by the Court ; and the Bench, after hearing Mr Brough in support i f the privilege claimed, ruled that the witness was bound to pro luce any documents in his possession that had reference to the charge under invest igat'on.

Examination of D. MaeKel'ar resumed : I produce a document marked Z), signed " Robert Kidd," and dated 7| 9 | 70. [The purport of the document was as follows :—'• I, Koherr, Kidd. hereby sell to George Fauvel one half sha-e in the Evening Star claim, Carrick Range, for the sum of £IOO sterling.]'] That document was not produced before me in mv capacity as umpire. The accused was not examined before me.

John Marsh, hotel-keeper, Ciorawel] : 1 was one of the arbitrators in the matter of Fauvel v. Kidd. The document marked D was pro luce 1 before me as one of the arbitrators. The accused was examined on that occasion. George Fauvel claimed the half of a sixth share in the Star of the East quartz mining claim. There was a repudiation of that document by Mr Kidd at the beginning of his evidence : he said lie had no recollection of the document. Mr Kidd admitted the signature attached to the document to be his. After the arbitration, the umpire suggested that all the papers should be handed te him in order to be destroyed. Cross-examination .—The object of the arbitration was to decide as to whether or not Kidd had sold to Fauvel an interest, in the Star of the East quartz claim, The sward *r>p never mad?

Re-examined : —There was Uo decision given by the umpire ; but the umpire being a friend of both parties, suggested that they should come to an amicable arrangement. The document produced is a sale-note, not a receipt. George Fauvel, miner, Carrick Range':—l am the George Fauvel referred to in the sale-note produced. That document was produced in the f natter of an arbitration between myself and Cidd, in which I claimed all interest in the Star of the East claim. There was no decision given by the arbitrators. The umpire stated that, as the arbitrators could "not agree, it was his duty to see if myself and accused could not agree. The matter was ultimately settled by agreement: Mr Kidd gave me fifty scrip in the Star of the East Company. This occurred about three Xveeks or a month ago. Not to my knowledge are there two claims known as Evening Star and Star of the East on the Carrick. I understood that the ground held by the Evening Star Company was identical with that now held by the Star of the East. 1 know the date of the document marked D, 7 | 0 | 70. Cross-examined :—1 know that an information has been laid against l!. Kidd for perjury. I cant swear that on the 7 | 9 | 70 there was no claim known as the Eveniug Star on the Carrick, because 1 was not then acquainted with the range. 1 don't even know now that tlrere is not a claim, or ever has been, a chum on the Carrick known by the name of the Evening Star. Kidd, giving his evidence in the arbitration, acknowledged my holding an interest in the Srai ot the East Company. 1 paid Kidd £S in January or February 1871, but I didn't tell him what L paid it for. Nobody else was present, and 1 took no receipt. About six weeks or two months later, I paid him a further sum of £ls, but did not tell him what it was for, and took no receipt. ! had just received about £'26 for wages. There was an old debt subsisting between nivselfandMr Kidd when I paid him the i'S. I owed money to the accused, —according to his account about .1'?. 1 consider that i. pai I 1'.") of it on account of the claim. Mr Stuart was present and saw me pay the £ls, Mr Kidd had not then disputed my claim to an interest in the Star of the East claim. 'I he claim was not then paying. At the 'time the case Francii v. K'ul't, was hoard in. the Warden's Court, I hail no transfer from Kidd When 1 asked Kidd for a transfer. 1)0 said he won Id retain a portion of the scrip tor the money 1 owed him, and he refused to transfer the interest I claimed. At the da.e of the arbitration, ! had not paid the £IOO referred to in the sale-note. I remember perfectly well that when 1 had completed M'Pherson's punt—about the middle of December 1870, I told accused 1 could not c unplete the purchase of the share in the Star of the East. At the time 1 saw Kidd in reference to the completion of the purchase, 1 don't remember accuse I asking me to return the document marked I), lie asked me iw it when he was going to give me a transfer of 2.") scrip. I don't remember ever

saying that J hail lost or destroyed iliat docu incut.

lie-examined :—At the time 1 paid the £8 and £ l~>, there was no other pecuniary transaction between us, beyond the IV? I owed him. When lie offered to transfer L'. 1 * Scrip to me, he asked me for the piece of paper that had passed between us. I never roceivcrt any other document from accused except that marked />, beyoud a list of the calls. After the arbitration 1 pit fifty scrip, value £1(1 each, in the Star of the P'ast < Vimpany from aeeusod. I took the shares as paid-up,—that is, there were no calls then due upon them.

At this stage Mr Wilson stilted that he could not carry the case any further, until he hail secured the attendance of a w'tucss whom he intended tn subpoena in order to complete the evidence for the j)rosecution. lie therefore asked tli?t a further adjournment might he granted. Mr Brough argued that it was very unfair to ask for an adjournment at that stage. There was nothing in the depositions to warrant the charge made against the accused, or even to establish a fmni'i fiirif case acrainst him.

.Mr Wilson replied tiiat the prosecution had made a great concession in agreeing to have the hearing adjourned to Clyde ; and as a matter of simple justice he asked for an adjournment now. The llesidcnt Magistrate said the only reason why he had consented to adjourn the'case, to Clyde was that it was likely to occupy a considerable time, and there was always plenty of business to get through in the Courts at from, well. In compliance with Mr Wilson's request, the further hearing of the case would be adjourned until 11 a.m. on Thursday, the 30th inst., at Cromwell.