RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3637, 9 March 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, March 8,

(Before Captain Preece, R.M.) REOINA V. CIIRISTY.

AVo continue our report, commenced in last issue, of the evidence taken in the information for alleged perjury against John Christy;— Sergeant Burtenshaw deposed that early on the morning of the 21st February Neenan came to him and complained of having been assaulted the previous night. Neenan's face was covered with blood, as was also part of his shirt. He had several bruises on his face, and a cut on the back of the head. By Mr Lee: I did not ;isk lum where he slept the previous night, nor did he say anything about it. I cannot say what state the Coote road was in on the 20th February. I examined it since, and found it covered with heavy metal. Martin Purcell repeated, with a few slight differences, tho evidence given by him on the previous occasion when tho action for assault was heard, adding that while Christy was knocking Neenan down an old man passed iilong the road in the direction of the Spit. At this stage Mr Cotterill asked for an adjournment to the following 1 morning, in order that he mignt consider in what way he should prove the evidence given in tho Resident Magistrate's Court upon which the defendant was convicted. There were a dozen possible sources, but the counsel for the defence objected to the source he (Mr Cotterill) had selected. The adjournment was granted. This Day. (Before E. Patten, Esq., J.P.) ADJOURNED CASES. Alice Greening, charged with having no lawful visible means of support, and Ellen Barry, charged with the larceny of fivo ostrich feathers, valued at £2 4s 6d, tho property of John Close (Neal and Close), were remanded until 3 ji.ra. REOINA V. CHRISTY. George Augustus Preece, on his oath, said: I am the Resident Magistrate at Napier, and ;i Justice of the Peace for the colony of New Zealand. The information against John Christy [put in and marked A] for an assault upon one AVilliam Neenan was heard before me on the 26th February last. I was present when the defendant Christy was sworn in the case at the request of his counsel. The oath was administered to him by Police Sergt. Burtenshaw. The defendant said, " I know Captain Balle. I have heard what he said. I did not knock the plaintiff down twice. I left the plaintiff on the ground when he fell the second time, because there were two or three there wdio I thought would look after lum. Reilly, Morrison, and Seymour were there ; they were standing at the doorway. AVaddell came up at that time." The defendant was convicted of the assault, and fined by mo as endorsed on the information' produced. By Mr Lee: The statements made by defendant that I have just narrated were given by him in answer to questions put through the Court. I asked the defendant, "Do you know Captain Balle ? " Ho said, " yes." I then immediately asked the defendant, "Have you heard what Captain Balle said?" I referred in that question to the evidence of Captain Balle previously taken in tho same case. The form of the next question I asked-was, " If Capt. Balle says he saw you knock the plaintiff down twice, is that true or not?" Defendant replied to the effect it was not true. Cap-* tain Balle in Ms evidence said " the man who was struck was at the corner of the fence below the hotel when I first saw him. He ran about two or three.fathoms." Captain Ballo stated also that the man was first knocked down,on tho main.road between

the hotel and lamp-post. The same witness further said that the man was knocked down a second time on the other side of tho road from the lamp-post. The next question put to the defendant had • reference to what took place on Neenan's T return. I asked, "Are you certain Purcell v was with the plaintiff when he returned ?" Defendant replied that he was not sure if such was the case, as ho was standing inside the oar, and could not see anyone else. The examination then changed the subject, and went back to a former part of the evidence. Christy in his statement said, '" I opened the side door, caught defendant by the shoulder to push him out. He resisted, we had a struggle, and he fell on his face on the road. He called out, and I went to pick him up, but he fell again, and I went into the house and left him." I questioned the defendant on the last statement after this manner, " Did you leave tho plaintiff on the ground when he fell the I second time, as stated in-your evidence?" His answer was, "Yes," and he gave as a reason for leaving plaintiff on the road that j there were people about who he thought I would look after him. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Cornford said Mr Lee and himself had decided to ask the Court that this case bo allowed to remain in its present state until the other cases, in which the same evidence would chiefly be taken, were heard. Meantime counsel for the defence would, with the Court's permission, let the question whether or not they would address the Court remain in abeyance until the other two cases were closed ou the part of the Crown. Mr Cotterill said he woidd offer no objection, although it was rather unusual to break off in the middle of a case. Mr Cornford said they had been doing that all the time. The permission asked for was granted by the Court. [Captaiu Preece here took Ms seat on tho bench.] REOINA V. REILLY, AND SEYMOUR. Michael Reilly was charged with having, on the 20th instant, in the R.M. Court £# Napier, committedwilfulandcorruptperju y in tlmevidence given by him in the assaift case Neenan v. Christy. William Seymour was also similarly charged. A copy of the evidenco'of Mrs AVaddell, as given in the preceding case against Christy, was read over and signed by her as correct. By Mr Cotterill: Tho cab that stood outside Christy's hotel was a one-horse wagonette. I know Reilly, but did not sec him that night. The cab was similar to that which Reilly drives. Tho witnesses Neeuau and Purcell, examined in the case against Christy above, confirmed their former evidence, and signed the same as correct. M. Purcell, examined by Mr Cotterill: It was a one-horse covered wagonette that "*~ Reilly drove Neenan and myself in. It stood outside Christy's hotel door during the whole of the row, and was there when I went away. Reilly followed me out after Christy pushed Neenan out of the house. Ho did not go with me when I went to pick Neenan up, but remained talking with the two men who were seated on the form in front of the hotel. When I turned to go back to Napier I saw Reilly again. He was still in about tho same place where I left him formerly. AVhen I returned to g» to Napier I saw two men sitting on the form outside the hotel, and Reilly was standing by speaking to them. Sergeant > Burtenshaw reiterated tho evidence given by him on the occasion of his being examined in the first case. G. A. Preece, Resident Magistrate, deposed that during the hearing of the assault case Neenan v. Christy, heard before him on the 26th ultimo, Michael Reilly, one of the witnesses for the defence on that occasion, said on oath, as follows:— "Defendant " (meaning Christy) " said it was time to shut up. He would not be bothered with Neenan. He put his arm round him and pushed him out. Neenan struggled and fell on the road. There is a platform over the gutter in front of the place. Defendant went to pick plaintiff up , and pushed him along. He (Neenan) then -j fell again. I did not see Christy strike <.. him. Purcell stood looking on a few minutes, and then ' cleared' up the road. Plaintiff was screaming and calling out. No one was touching him. This man (plaintiff) went towards town. Christy could not have done more than I have stated. I was looking on the whole time. Plaintiff came back about an hour afterwards.'' The defendant also said on cross-examination as follows:—"I saw every thing that took place from beginning to end. Anyone who says he saw Christy knock the plaintiff down is telling untruth. I was standing at Christy's door from the time plaintiff came until he finally went away. [At this stage of the proceedings the Court was adjourned until 2 o'clock,] Tho evidence of Captain Preece in the case against Seymour was then taken, also that of Alexander Morrison. The three cases for the prosecution being closed, Mr Cornford said he desired to explain to His AVorship Mr Patten, who was now to bo considered as the Bench, since Mr Preece had retired from it, that his friend Mr Lee and himself had decided to offer no evidence, and not to address the Court, but he (Mr -- Cornford) wished as courteously as possible to explain their reasons for adopting this course, which were that these prosecutions were directed by Mr Preece, the Resident Magistrate, who sat in the case out of which the present proceedings arose, and in which cases he had formed opinions adverse to the veracity of the several defendants. Mr Preece also sat during the hearing of tho greater part of the present cases with His AA r orship Mr Patten, aud ■ took notes and put questions to witnesses as though he acted as one of the Bench. Mr Preece had also given evidenco in these cases. It woidd, therefore, be a most invidious position in which to place His AVorship Mr Patten to ask him summarily to reverse tho decision of the R.M., or to decide upon the truth of evidenco on which the R.M. had previously given a verdict, since tho case depended largely upon the credibility of the various witnesses. Mr Lee and himself had therefore determined to call no evidence, but to leave His Worship to decide whether in his opinion there was a prima facie case, and if His AA r orship should .prove of that opinion the three defendants were quite prepared to meet evidence with evidence at a later stage. The Couat considered a prima facie case had been established, and the defendants were each formally committed to take their trial at the next criminal sittings of the Supreme Court at Napier, bail being accepted for their appearance in the amounts previously fixed by the Court. The following were named as bondsmen: — Messrs Swan and Currie, for Christy ; Messrs G. Bowman and A. Waddell, for Seymour; and Messrs Tait and , McCormick, for Reilly. Mr Cotterill said, with respect to Seymour's proposed bail, ho must object to Mr Waddell's name. It was in evidence in the ease that Mr AVaddell took a rather prominent position in the matter, and had declared himself to Neenan as a detective \ while they were in Christy's hotel. A Mr Leo retorted that that evidenco was given by a man Avko was systematically drunk. Mr Cotterill said there was no evidence that the man had been drunk. Mr Lee: The whole evidence throughout goes to prove it. Mr Cotterill said Waddell was a witness iv the case, Mr Lee: He was not called. There was some statement made about him, and that is all. There is really nothing in Mr Cotte- ►' rill's objection. Mr AVaddell was a wellknown and respectable business man. Any objection to his name was purely His AVorship asked that some other naaic be substituted. Mr Cornford considered the question of bail was ono of solvoney alone. Mr Cotterill had nothing to do with Mr Waddell's namo was mentioned during the hearing of the case or not. The objection raised simply meant defaming Seymour under apprehension until perhaps to-morrow morning, in order that a fresh bondsman for a trumpery bail of £50 might be found. Mr Patten said he could not accept Mr AVaddell's nume, as the Crown Prosecutor had objected to it. Mr Cornford: Your Worship is mistaken. Mr Cotterill holds no higher status in this Court than any other solicitor. His Worship still objecting, the name of Gcorgo T. Cross was substituted for Mr WaddelPa, ' '. ' ' ' ' I_ ?^—*—— tmmmmmmmmm