CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4080, 24 March 1876, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Friday, March 24. (Before H. S. Fish, £q, and A. Mollison Esq., J.P.’s.) ’

Holiday Drones.— Richard Fox, Richard Louston, Patrick Connor (who had Lfi4 on biro when locked up), Geo. Roberts, and John M‘Guineas were each fined sa, or, in default, twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. Wm. Armitage Was fined 5s for drunkenness, and, for using obscene language, 20s or forty-eight hours. •

Fighting.— Richard Tennant, for fighting in Dowling Street, was fined 20s, or, in default, twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. Piisoner w s then charged with as aulting ar estingconst ible Barry, for which he was fined 4Gs, or, in default, forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. The Railway Regulations.— James Patterson was charged with jumping into a railway carriage at Burke’s Brewery when the train was in mot on, and with jump ng out of the win ’ow of a railway carriage at Dunedin while the train was in motion. Defendant pleaded gulty to the latter charge only.—The railway guard stated that he stopped at Burke’s, and let down and picked up passengers. {Seeing no more passengers he started in the train. Defendant then jumped on to the train, though warned not to do so. At Pelichet Bay witness had him placed in a small cart age and locked the window. On arriving at the Dunedin station defendant jumped out of the window.— Defendant was fined 20s on each charge. TRESPASS. —Hugh M'Clock, for being illegally on the premises of Hugh Philips at St. Kilda, was fined 20s, In default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. alleged Perjury.— Gteo. Harris, boot-im-Sorter, Was charged on the information of Lou s lasch, agent, for; that he did, on March 17 last, falsely, co ruptly, and wilfully commit perjury upon evidence then given by him upon oath as witness upon the hearing of an information preferred by one Alex. Ba hgate, of Dunedin, against one Louis Basch, before Messrs Fish dud Reynolds, J.P.’s, to wit, “that Basch said fie knew he was short, but could make it up,’* and furthermore that “Basch acknowledge d to L4OO short in the presence of four other's.” Mr Denni-ton,-instructed by Mr Sanders, supported the information; Mr Lewis defended Harris, who pleaded not guilty.—Mr Denniston, in stating the case, said that he would show beyond a doubt that the w«rds alleged by Harris to have hem used by Basch could not nave been used, and thit they were not true. Basch’s words had been ingeniously twisted so as to ‘meet the exigencies of the charge, which w<is incomplete, and to fill up a gap that was wanted. What Basch really said was, “All I want is justice—if l am short I can make it up/’ If he could prove that Harris was interested la Bosch's conviction, or if he could prove malice by Harris against Basch, the circumstances would be sufficient to warrant • committal He called William Somerville, Clerk to the Court, who proved the hearing of the infoimatioa for embezzlement against Basch, The evidence was not taken down by him, the case bti g one of summary jurisdiction.- Henry Wm. Hope, clerk to Mr Sand rs solicitor, was present at the hearing of an information against Mr Basch on the 17th inst. He beard part of Mr Harris's evidence, and made a rote of it. Harris said, “Basdh ac know’edged to bo short about L3o>.”—Louis Basch. agent: I wan defendant in a charge of embezzlement heard on the 17th inst. I heard the evidence given by the accused (Harris), In the -course of his evidence he said, “ Bach acknowledged to being short, and that he could make it up.’ Harris also said “ He (Basch) acknowledged to bei tg short L3OO orL4OO, and that he curd make it up.” He said these statements were m de at a meeting of directors in Mr Bathgate’s offices. I had only one interview with the directors at which Harris was present after my arrest. That was the interview Harris referred to. I never made any such statement as either of these sworn to in the presence of Harris. At that meeting there were present Mr Harris (chairman), Mr M'Kinlay, Mr . Lambert, Air Niv n, Mr Bathgate. Mr T. C. Reid, Mr Evans, and myself.' Mr Evans’s statement was laid before tha meeting. 1 examined the statement and found several great mistakes in it. I asked Mr Harris as chairman of the directors to request Mr Bathgate to produce the mortgage sheet, which is a list of loans. It was produced, and I pointed out d screpancies wbi. hj the directors acknowledged. That was all fiat t ok place, I to k up my bat after learning that my presence was non fur;her wanted, and said, “ Gentlemen,- all I require is jutice, if I am shoit I will make it up.” Ithenlefc At that time I hadbeen arrested and was out onbail. Next morning Harris came to my office. Ho stated he wished to see me in his shop on private business. I went with h ; m to his shop. He took me into his back room and said to me, “You know, Basch, that this cheque of yours for L2l was dishonored.” He referred to a private cheque given to him. I had paid Mr Harris LlO on this account, an i had given a diamond ring as security for the remainder. Harris told lire that the ring had i een valued at - L 6, and asked me for the balance, Lfi 10s, He said, “ Basch. you know I can be a friend to you. If you don’t pay me you know that embezzling from Companies is a very serious affair, and that the punishment for embezzling is as much as seven years.” He further toldmethat up to the present he had suppressed all further proceedings against me. I told him that if the accounts of the Company were properly made up I had n thing v to fear, but. that it was impossible for me to pay him the Lfi JLOs then. —By Mr Lewis ; I. have never gene ■by any other, name than Louis Basch. _ At Den’liquin I was called Hhanliug.—Mr Lewis : Was tbaf before or after yon were convicted Mj Denpislou objected. Counsel, if be wanted*

Produce evidence of the conviction. —Mr lish: The best way would be to ask him was he convicted.—Witness (to Mr Lewis): I decline to answer the question. At the; Fiji’s I served nineteen months. I protected the white man against the natives. I called °* ex-king, and f J? C ®: pr * ,d !? t of » Political socnty got into trouble. It was a political J Partly tried byEuropeabs and /’artly by Natives. To the best of my belief lv' e y stated at an interview with thedirectors tiv %t I was L3BO. or L4QO short. John Niven was on fc *he list of directors of the Coin' pany of which Ixjsch wk s secretary. At an interview with the directs at Mr Bsflhgate’s on February 24, Basch. lifter pomte out some mistakes in Evans’s state merit, safKt there was a deficiency he could main 9 it up. Witness did not remember hearing Baa J h say that he knew he was short, and that he co.nld make it up. ‘ He did not thiuk Basch mentioned any* sum as a deficiency. Witness visited Basch. at his house that night. Basch them said. “You don’t want security for more.than LSOO. 3 ’ This, was thecase for the prosecution.—Mr Lewis sub mitted that the case must be dismissed, the evidence being insufficient to substantiate the charge, which was a trumpery one, and had been merely concocted by Basch >n order that he might exculpate himself from the recent charge of fraud brought a gainst him, out of which this charge arose. The most important elements to constitute the offence were wanting. One of thd most important elements of the charge must bo that the alleged statement was material to the mdttor then under the consideration of the Court —The Bench here interrupted Mr Lewis, saying they were prepared to deal with the oise at oiyoe, There were two very tssenti d elements to make out a primd facie case of perjury ; the must be knowingly done, and secondly, that the perjury it-elf must be material to the case m which the perju*y was committed. Now; in the case in. which the alleged perjury was committed the charge only dealt with the snm of L 5, And had nothing whatever to do with the admissio'.n forL3UO, and, had pr souer’s counsel raised theobjectioa that Harris’s statement with regard to the L3OO was immatoiid, he (Mr Fish) should have felt it his duty to reject it at tae time. With regard to rianis's having knowingly made a f Ue statement it was.quite evident that although he had imp operly sworn without duly thinking of the exact words used, thee could be no imputation of his knowingly and falsely‘telling a falsehood for the ensuring of a conviction. As to the mo ive, the couveisation kk defendant’s shop could not be held to be sufficient for his goi> g iuto the box and wilfully committing perjuiy, and that element was entirely wanting ; therefore the charge must be dismissed; and ap art from that the Bench had no hesitation in sayibg that the ; cake ought not to have been brought befon tbe Oou.t, and that defendant hid left the Court Withonttho slightest imputation of any description reflecting on his character. An application ! for costs was ‘d sallowed, in being an indictable offence.