RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2531, 28 March 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tups Day. (Before A. C. Strode, liacp, R.M.) REGINA mTHOU. The hearing of this case was proceeded with. The witnesses examined to-day were:— Henry Howorth, solicitor, who stated : He acted recently as solicitor for Mr John Trcweek, and had certain lei tore in Ids possession which he had received fiom Trewee.k, Ho had received no instructions to produce them, nor to give any information in regard to them ; and without in tructions, he could not do the one or the other. Mr Barton submitted that the witness was bound to produce the letters j hat his Worship ruled to the contrary. Mr Barton remarked that it was extraordinary that Mr Howorth should refuse to produce the letters. Mr Smith : Why has not Trewcek been brought here as a witness? Mr Barto i : Simply because wo do not choose to waste money in bringing him here, When wo know perfectly well that the Utters arc in Dunedin,

His Worship : It seems to me if Treweek had communicated directly with Mr Howorth no difficulty would have occurred.

Mr bar!on said ho could not cross-examine Mr Driver until these letters were produced; and on Mr Smith objecting to an adjournment that was asked for, he (Mr Barton) intimated his intention o: declining to crossexamine at all. Mr Smith then stated that the case for the prosecution had closed. Mr Barton : Is this all Mr Driver does to clear his character ? Mr Smith : I submit a prima Jade case has been made out. Mr Barton : It seems to me that it would be quite useless for me to attempt any defence ; so I must leave to the Court the duty of seeing that justice and right are done. I decline further professional responsibility, seeing the conduct of the case by the other side from beginning to end—conduct, which I regret to see, learned counsel for the prosecution should deem consistent with duty. Edward Crokev, retired field officer of her Majesty’s service, was formerly Warden at Tuapekn. He knew Mr Driver and his hand writing. He also knew John Treweek, who showed to him some letters in Mr Driver’s hand-writing. Mrs Croker saw them also in his presence. Mrs Croker copied three of them, or made extracts from them correctly. Mr Barton proceeded to hand some papers to the witness, to which Mr Smith objected, on the ground that no ground for secondary evidence was laid. Mr Macasscy followed on the same side, and maintained that it was necessary first to prove that the alleged letter existed, p£ whjch

there was no proof, neither was there any proof adduced that sufficient eftorts ha I been made to produce it. This was nesessary, as Mr Driver had shewn no such letter ever had been written.

Mr Barton urged that it was competent to a«k the witness to identify the documents as copies of the letters made by Mrs Croker. Mr Smith said by the rules of evidence the documents could not be admitted, as the endeavor to get them put iu was the first step towards making them secondary evidence.

Air Barton claimed that on a preliminary investigation he hid a right to have the documents before the Court. Me had dozens of witnesses on the point. It Was his defence, and sho dd his Worship rule against him, and decide that he would neither grant a remand for a week nor allow the question, he should sit down.

His Worship had not considered about the remand, nor could he allow the question until the ground had been laid for it. Air Barton re-called Air Ho worth, who was asked to give a list of the documents in his hands belonging to Mr Treweok, which he dcc’incl to do. Ho declined to give any information as the documents received in the case of Henuingham v. Driver, an I declined to produce or give a list of the letter without instructions. Mr M'Leod shewed hin a telegram purporting to be signed by John Trewcck, and was told it was no instruction to him. The purport of the telegram was not, as described by Air Barton, an authority to shew M'Leod the letters in his possession.

Mr Barton submitted that Mr Ho worth was bound to give a list, and quoted au authority. His Worship said Mr Howorth was not bound to give that list. Air Barton said it was plain his assistance and that of Mr Bathgate was of no u c to his client. He would, therefore, leave the case to the Court. Mr Smith suggested that Mr Barton should a-k if the original of the placard was in 1 is joossession. Mr Barton declined to do so. The usual caution was given to the defendant, who reserved his defence, and was co unfitted to take his trial at the session of the Supreme Court iu Dunedin. Air Smith asked that substantial bail should be required. Mr Barton said it was the determination of Air Ai - Leod to go prison, in order to force a trial.

Mr Macasscy said it was necessary by the regulations to state in Court whether such a prosecution would be continued by the informant or remitted to the Crown prosecutor. In this case it was intended to place it in the hands of the Crown Solicitor, and henceforth Mr Driver would not appear as prosecutor.

Mr Barton then asked that, under the circumstances, the amount of bail should be named.

The defendant was required to give bail, himself in L2OO, and two sureties of LIOO each,

The case of Regina (on the prqseqqtiqQ of J. Macandrew) v. Dick was withdrawn.