SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2052, 2 December 1869, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

This Day. - (Before Mr Justice Ward.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at ten o’clock. BOBBERY FROM A DAVE' LINO. John Judge, who was yesterday charged with stealing from a dwelling at Clyde, and in whose case the jury were unable to agree, was again placed in the dock. The facts of the case are shortly as followa :—On the 4th November last, one Mary Ann Yates, a barmaid at the Junction Hotel, Clyde, had in her possession a cheque for L 6 10s, the property of her employer, a gold coin belonging to herself, and a bag of gold belongingto aminernamed James Hoyle, who was then a lodger in the house, The prisoner was staying there at the same time. The articles were placed in a box in the girl’s bedroom. The next morning, the girl, on going up to her room, heard a noise in it as though a man were walking out. She at once told her employer, who on going to the room found the prisoner there, and at once put him out. An hour afterwards, the landlord asked for the cheque, and the barmaid on going to her room to look for it, discovered that it and the other articles had been stolen. Suspicion attached to the prisoner, as being the person last seen in the girl’s room ; and in his hand was found the cheque ; and, on his being removed from the bed on which he was lying, the coin and the gold were discovered. The jury, after an absense of nearly three hours, returned a verdict of Guilty. There were five previous convictions, and the prisoner was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. PERJURY. Robert Henderson was indicted for having at Clyde, on the 31st August last, committed wilful and corrupt perjury. Mr Barton defended. The facts of the case, as stated by the Crown Prosecutor, were these :—The prisoner was charged with perjury in a case which was pending in the Warden’s Court, Clyde, in which one Daniel Moore was the plaintiff, and the prisoner himself was the defendant. That case was brought up on a complaint by Daniel Moore, by which he claimed that he, the said Daniel Moore, was and is still engaged in a gold mining partnership with the defendant and is equally in. terested with him in a certain dredge used for gold mining purpose*, and known as the Garibaldi dredge, and that as such partner as aforesaid, the complainant expended certain monies in connection with the repairing, removing, and working of the said dredge upon a certain dredge claim then occupied by the complainant, and that on or about the I4th day of Oct. last the defendant endeavored unlawfully to deprive the complainant of his interest in the said dredge

by removing the same, and forbidding the complainant to go on hoard after, wherefore the complainant claims that the defendant be adjudged to furnish an account of all his dealings in reference to the said dredge, and to pay to the complainant one half of the net profit earned by the said dredge. It would be seen that the ownership of the dredge was a material question in the action. However, at the hearing Henderson was asked first by the counsel for Moore, a certain question relative to the ownership of the dredge, and in consequence of the answer he gave the examination was continued by the Warden, in reply to whom Henderson disclaimed all ownership by himself of the dredge, and asserted that a man named Corsar held a three-fourths share, and a man Dockerty the remaining fourth-share; he (Henderson) being only a working shareholder. Corsar in being exrmined, denied that he had the slightest interest in the dredge. It was clear that perjury was committed by some one. The prisoner was selected ae being the one who bad done so, and on kis being taken into custody the following document was found on him:— “Oct. 12, 1868. —“I have this day sold to Robert Henderson all my right, title, and interest in the dredge at Clyde, for the sum of L6O. As witness made under my hand this day.—Jas. Corsar." After the witnesses for the prosecution were called, His Honor having intimated that he did not think there was a case to go to the jury. The Crown Prosecutor pointed out if his Honor thought there was not sufficient corroborative evidence as to Henderson being owner of the dredge, there was the assignation of perjury on Henderson’s allegation, that Cossar held a three-quarter share in the dredge. After some further discussion, the case was allowed to proceedMr Barton thought it necessary that hi* client’s character should be cleared, and woujd make a statement which he considered would have that effect The circumstances were actually tljese :—Henderson was originally $ shareholder, along with 3 number of others, in a gold mining claim, apd the dredge in question. The other shareholders being desirous of selling out, Henderson, with the assistance of Corsar, a friend of his, purchased their interest. Subsequently, it was agreed that Moore should buy into the claim, on condition that he paid the sum agreed upon to Cossar in liquidation of his (Henderson’s) debt. Moore having failed to do this, was by Cossar’s direction turned out of the dredge. Mr Barton then produced documents showing that Henderson originally owed Cossar LlO4 7s 8d ; that in April, 1869, the former, to protect Coss ir, made an assignment of the dredge to him ; and that on the same day Cossar agreed on the repayment by Henderson of the LlO4 7s sd, which then, with interest, had increased to LI 10, to give him back the dredge; that Cossar, subsequent to the trial at the Warden’s Court, found these documents and forwarded them to Mr Chappie. He submitted that had Henderson sworn that he was the owner of the dredge, he would be telling a direct falsehood, for Cossar was the true owner until his claim was paid off. Cossar, on being recalled, said that the documents produced were in his handwriting. The Judge, in summing up, said) in regard to the first assignment of perjury, he could not direct the jury that Henderson had sworn falsely that he was not the owner of the dredge ; and with regard to the second there was the fair explanation that he had put aside his f of his one-sixth share, to payoff his debt to Coss ir, and this was what he meant by saying the latter had a three-fourth share. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of not guilty. He was accordingly discharged. DEFAULTING JURYMEN. John Davis and James Walker were fined 40s, unless cause be shown for non-attend-ance, The Court then adjourned.