SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 351, 28 July 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS, Tuesday, July 27. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.') His Honor took his seat in court at 11 a.m BREACH OF LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1870. Edward Mainwaring-Johnson surrendered to his bail, and was arraigned under the following indictment:— That Edward Mainwaring-Johnson on the 3rd day of July AD. 1871 unlawfully did assist one John Campbell in fraudulently procuring from one Joshua Strange Williams then being District Land Registrar for the Land Registration District of Canterbury under the Land Transfer Act 1870 a certificate of title under the said Act to wit a certain certificate of title issued under the said Act to the said John Campbell in respect to certain land situate in the district of Christchurch in the province of Canterbury and being part of the rural section marked 26 delineated in the public map of the said district of Christchurch deposited in the office of the chief surveyor of the said province of Canterbury against the form of the Act in such case made and provided and against the peace of our Lady the Queen her Crown and dignity. 2nd Count.—That the said Edward Main-waring-Johnsou afterwards to wit on the 3rd day of July A.D. 1874 unlawfully did assist one John Campbell in fraudulently procuring from one Joshua Strange Williams then being District Land Registrar for the Land Registration District of Canterbury under the Land Transfer Act 1870 a certificate of title under the said Act to wit a certain certificate of title bearing date the Bth day of September 1874 and marked and numbered as certificate of title Register Book vol ix, folio 51 issued under the said Act by the said Joshua Strange Williams then and there being such District Land Registrar as aforesaid to the said John Campbell. 3rd Count—That the said Edward Mainwaring Johnson afterwards to wit on the Bth day of September AD. 1874 unlawfully was privy to the fraudulent procurement by one John Campbell from one Joshua Strange Williams, then being District Land Registrar for the Land Registration District of Canterbury under the Land Transfer Act 1870 of a certificate of title to wit a certain certificate of title under the Land Transfer Act 1870 issued by the said Joshua Strange Williams as such District Land Registrar as aforesaid to the said John Campbell in respect of certain land situate in the district of Christchurch in the Province of Canterbury in the colony of New Zealand and being part of the rural section marked 26 delineated in the public map of the said district of Christchurch deposited in the office of the chief surveyor of the said Province of Canterbury, 4th Count—That the said Edward Main-waring-Johnson afterwards to wit on the Bth day of September, A.D. 1874, unlawfully was privy to the fraudulent procurement from Joshua Strange Williams then being District Land Registrar for the Land Registration District of Canterbury under the Land Transfer Act 1870 by one John Campbell of a certificate of title to wit a certain certificate of title under the Land Transfer Act 1870 bearing date the Bth day of September 1874 and marked and distinguished as certificate of title Register Book vol ix folio 51 and issued under the said Act by the said Joshua Strange Williams as such District Land Registrar aforesaid to the said John Campbell. Mr Duncan appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Crown. Mr Joynt appeared for the defence. The defendant, who occupied a place on the floor of the Court, the offence being a misdemeanour only, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr George Bradley was chosen foreman of the petty jury. The circumstances of the case may briefly be narrated as follows :—ln the month of July last the defendant was acting as a broker under the the Land Transfer Act, 1870, and one John Campbell called on him with reference to a transaction of land, which it was necessary to bring under the Land Transfer Act. The defendant, actingasagent for Campbell, applied to Mr Joshua Strange Williams, the District Land Registrar, to issue a certificate of title to Campbell, under the Act. The registrar required further evidence, as it stated that there was no encumbrance save an agreement of mortgage. The defendant then declared before a J P. as to the matter, which declaration was handed to the District Land Registrar, who thereupon issued a certificate of title. It was afterwards found that the statement in the original document of application was false, and also the declaration made by Campbell. Mr Duncan asked Mr Joynt to produce certain papers, certificates of title, agreements to mortgage, and others, of which he had given him notice, Mr Joynt said he had no papers to produce. His Honor—Then you will have to give secondary evidence, Mr Duncan, of their existence. How do you propose to do that ? Mr Duncan—l propose to call the officer who possesses the duplicate copy of these documents, which it is the custom of the office to retain. Mr Duncan then proceeded to call evidence as follows : Robert William D’Oyly—l am examiner of titles under the Land Transfer Act, and also a solicitor of the Supreme Court, Tte document produced is an application by John Campbell to bring part of rural section 26 under the Land Transfer Act. [Document put in.J A certificate of title was issued upon that application to John Campbell. I'he date of the application is the 2nd day of July, 1874. I cannot answer the question as to who applied for the certificate or who received it. The person acting as broker was the defendant. I know this of my own knowledge, because he signed the application as the broker acting in the matter. He signed the endorsement on the back of the application. After the issue of the certificate there were two mortgages made, which were brought to the'office. I cannot say what date the certificate of title was issued. The date of the memorandum of mortgage on the certificate of title, was September, 1874. Mr Joynt objected to evidence being given of a mortgage on the certificate of title, when the certificate itself was not before the Court. His Honor said he thought that the Crown would of course prove that fact. Mr Duncan said that he was prepared with witnesses to prove the certificate of title. Examinalion continued—The mortgage was brought into the office by the land broker (the defendant),) _

Mr Joynt objected to Mr Duncan ao. . the witness what land it referred to wh&.l

the certificate of title had not been proved His Honor said he was taking ihi evidence de iene esse, as the certificate had been promised to be proved by the Crown. Examination continued The mortgage was over part of rural section No 26, and was for £9O, in favor of the prisoner. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l did not see the defendant sign the endorsement on the back of the application as land broker. The mortgage produced covered only a portion of the land referred to in the certificate of title, and also in the application. Richard James Strachan Harman—l am a Justice of the Peace for the colony of New Zealand, The signature to the document is mine as a Justice of the Peace to a declaration by John Campbell, under the Land Transfer Act of 1870. Robert Wilkin—l am a Justice of the Peace for the colony of New Zealand. The declaration now produced was declared before me by one John Campbell. [Declaration attached to application put in.] Charles Manning, a boy of fourteen—l

was clerk to defendant last year. I entered

bis office in May, 1874, lam still in his office. The signature attached to the document produced is mine, as a witness to John Campbell’s signature to a mortgage. On page 133 of the book produced I see my signature as a receipt on behalf of defendant, I signed “0. M. Manning, for E, M. Johnson.” I received some deeds—parchment deeds. I gave them to the defendant.

John James Dixon—l am a clerk in the Deeds Registry Office, I have seen the last witness. I notice a signature of his in the book produced, on behalf of Mr Johnson. It was in October, 1874. The documents were partly parchment and partly paper. The description of the documents is in my handwriting, and I made the entries at the time from the documents themselves, which I gave to the witness Manning. Witness Manning recalled by the Court— I do not know what became of the documents which I brought to Mr Johnson. I do not know whether Mr Campbell got any of these documents, nor do I know whether Mr Johnson has given any of those deeds away since I gave them to him. Witness Dixon re-examined I produce the register book containing the duplicate certificates of title. I find there one document which I identify as one of the documents which I gave to Manning. I identify it by the folio and number which is placed on it. The duplicates are all bound up in this book. [Certificate of title read,] The parchment copy of that certificate of title was given to the witness Manning. Mr Joynt declined to cross-examine this witness.

Mr Duncan then called his Honor Mr Justice Williams, who being sworn by his Honor Mr Justice Johnston, took his seat on the Bench and gave the following testimony; Joshua Strange Williams—Last year I was District Land Registrar for this district. I so continued until the 3rd March this year; I know the defendant; .he was a land broker in 1874, The document produced is an application by one John Campbell, for whom the defendant acted as land broker. After the application was sent to the office I had some conversation with the defendant — either the same day as that on which the document was received in the office, or a day or two afterwards. I think he happened to be in the office. I drew defendant’s attention to a paragraph in the application that there appeared to be an outstanding agreement as set out, dated 9th July, 1864, between John Campbell and Joseph Jessop, 170 1409, affecting lot 31, which agreement had never been carried out. 1 told defendant I should require some further evidence that this agreement had been cancelled or become void. He said that it had become void, that Jessop had been away for some time, and that nothing further had been done under it except the payment of a deposit. I told him that he had better get a declaration from Campbell stating specifically the facts, to show that the agreement was no longer in existence. He said he would do so, and a day or two afterwards he brought the ceclaration by Campbell. The declaration is the one now produced. The declaration is in the handwriting of the defendant, I know his handwriting. [Declaration read.] As District Land Registrar, I issued a certificate of title. The duplicate is that now produced. The certificate of title was issued to John Campbell. The declaration produced obviated the objection I had raised. Afterwards I ascertained that the declaration was not correct. I know of the existence of documentary evidence proving the incorrectness of the declaration. I entered a caveat against part of the land, because from the documentarj evidence which I had before me I became aware that Campbell had no title to the land.

Mr Duncan called Percival Pearce to depose to the execution of a certain deed between Campbell and Jessop. In 1866, he was clerk to Messrs Hanmer and Harper. The deed produced was a conveyance by John Campbell and Joseph Jessop, of part of rural section 26, to John Whale. I was a witness to the signatures of John Campbell and Joseph Jessop. J4r Justice Williams re-examined —After t “He certificate of title had been issued, the j‘ * uow put in was brought to me by Mr Sl eei ' In consequence of reading that *ged a caveat. [Deed read.] deed, 1 q oe( j by Mr Joynt—A portion Cross-exam Cloned in Campbell’s declarant the land met. title. I do not retion was correct a letter from decollect Banks bring copy of will of one fondant. He brought a were other deeds Whale, I believe. There the i an( j ) dated affecting Campbell s title to July 1866. *nd registered, subsequent to IK defect T 4e-exarained by Mr Duncan —. 0 f in tte title at once appeared on the the application. to By IsHr Joynt—The defendant did not, the best of my belief, ask my opinion a regarded this difficulty before bringing in the application, and the best way of obviating it. Ido not remember going into the question of title with the defendant, and searching the register books with him. Robert McConnell —I am an articled clerk to Mr Wynn Williams, Christchurch. 1 know thejdefendant, In the month of June or July, 1874, I had no conversation with defendant as to part of rural section No 26. He (defendant) had a conversation with me respecting certain mortgages from Campbell to defendant.

The witness claimed exemption from stating the conversation, as be was managing clerk to Mr Wynn Williams, who he considered was acting as solicitor for defendant, as the defendant, on consulting him with reference to it, said he would retain Mr Wynn Williams on his behalf.

His Honor asked whether it resulted in V employment of Mr Wynn Williams. (Witness stated he did not know this, think thawed by Mr Duncan-I do not time act as so Fj™ ™ ia “ B a m M Williams wrote a t P r 4 ,0 P the defendant Mr bell to the defendant? ™ntofCampon Mr Williams with"lSL Williams declined to act in J By the Court-Before Mr WilTiS“ r * the letter from Campbell, the defenda? not engage-Mr Williams to act for him. t understood, when the defendant spoke to me first about the mortgage, that he would employ Mr Williams, as he said, “ I shall have Mr Williams to act for me.” I imagine the defendant spoke to me on the subject of this land as Mr Williams’ managing clerk. He knew that I was acting in that capacity. His Honor held that the conversation between the defendant and the witness, the former believing that the latter was managing clerk to the solicitor was a privileged communication, and therefore could not be detailed by the witness. Re-examined by Mr Duncan—lt was not more than two or three days after the conversation that Mr Williams declined to act. After that I had some conversation with defendant. This was shortly after the arrest of the defendant on the charge. I understood that the defendant knew that Mr Williams had declined to act for him. 1 was in a shed behind my place polishing my boots, and the defendant said to me, “ Have you heard the news?” I said, “No.” He said, “ I have been arrested; have they subpoenaed you as a witness ?” I said, “ No.” He said, “ I suppose they will; but I said nothing to yon at any of our conversations to in any waj implicate me,” I knew why he was arrested, as I knew what the warrant was for. I replied, “ Well Johnson, there is no use in mincing matters ; if I am forced to give evidence I consider it will convict you ; but as I have already told you, that I consider the conversations we had together were privileged, it is not my intention, as I have already said, to give evidence, but if I am forced to do so, I must give evidence. He then replied, “ Thank God that’s the case.” That was all the conversation at that time. After this, one night defendant called me into his office, and went over the same ground as on the previous occasion, and said that there was no proof that Campbell got the consideration for the conveyance. This was, I understood, the conveyance from Campbell to Whale* The conversation on the first occasion was detailed. The defendant said he knew nothing about the matter. I replied that he did, because he had told me. He said, “ Oh, well 1 must have been in that state that I didn’t know what I was saying.” I said, “ I told you at the first that I could not advise you unless you told me everything in connection with the matter.” I had no further conversation with defendant on this matter, William Henry Wynn Williams—l am a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court. I know the defendant. I did not act as bis solicitor in the matter of some land in respect to one Campbell. I acted for Campbell. I addressed a letter to the defendant on the 2th October, 1874, and afterwards saw him. I saw him the next morning. The defendant asked me the first thing if I would act for him, as he was in hopes, from having seen Mr McConnell, that I would do so. I told him I could not do so, as I was acting for Mr Campbell. This was in the street, just opposite the private entrance to my office. We had some conversation as to the nature of the transaction. I told him what was Campbell’s version of it, which was that Mr Johnson had got him to sign two mortgages for the same sum, under a statement which was not true. He answered that it was utterly untrue, and wanted to make an explanation. I told him if he wanted to make any explanation he had better make it in writing. He followed me into my office and said he would net occupy me more than a few minutes if I would allow him to explain, when I would see that Campbell was telling an untruth. He said the first mortgage was for £BO for money advanced to Campbell, and that the second, for £9O, was given to him to secure the payment of a sum of money which represented half the value of a piece of land which Johnson was to get for procuring a title to it under the Land Transfer Act, Campbell having a “fishy” title to it. I said that it seemed to me to be an extraordinary charge for a broker under the Land Transfer Act to make, and that I should consider it my duty to inform the Registrar of it. I told him it was a serious matter, and he had better see a solicitor. He said as I would not act for him he would go to Mr Joynt, I did not say anything about the letter of Campbell’s at this time. After this the defendant came back and said, “ As you can’t act in this case, have you any objection to act against Mr Hanmer” ? I asked him what he meant, and he said that the defect in Campbell’s title resulted from Mr Hanmer preparing two deeds, and that he could be let in for damages. I declined to have anything to do with it. He said Mr Hanmer had prepared two conveyances for the same piece of land. It was then that I told Johnson that I considered he and Campbell had committed a gross fraud, and that if the latter came again I should order him out of the office. He did not say anything but seemed surprised I should take that view of it. He went away, and said he would see Banks and Fox, the two trustees in Whale’s estate. Percival Pearce, re-called —I know the defendant. I had a conversation with him as regarded Campbell’s title to land. I cannot be certain as to the date. The conversation took place at. my store. The defendant called upon me, and asked me if I knew anything about a piece of property belonging to Campbell which had been brought under the Act, and for which he was to get £9O, as half value of the property, for bringing the land under the Act for Campbell. Defendant said that Campbell had said “ Didn’t he think him a b fool for giving him £9O f - bringing the land under the Act, when he* c' u get one e * se t 0 or 10s '” H wen on sa y Mr Hanmer had got . . nto a mess over the land. I said 'e bow this was possible, but I 1 r . u •me else was very likely to do thought some . would w J it fo / a few so, I told him u f to my bookß , mmutes I wonld „ ifc j and let him know and there ieferred to y this piece of land found record of sales of * v,. ~n from Travers to Campbell, L ° , P , Jessop, and from Jessop to Campbell and Whale. I said that I could not how they could bring the land under the . there was an agreement with Jessn b tered, Johnson said that Campbell never got the purchase money, fnd. f agreement was void.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l do not I remember whether defendant asked me to look at my books <o see if Campbell had been paid the pur a-e money. I do not believe he did. The book was one in which I entered the moneys received for the sale of the land; acting as agent for Mr Travers, I there saw that Campbell had paid the deposit money to me for Mr Travers. The entry as to the transaction between Campbell and Jessop would be found in Messrs Ilanmer and Harper’s books. I only took note of the deposit money, as the completion o°. the purchase money was made with that Campbell had demurred to give defendant £go for bringing the land under the Act._ 1 think the defendant’s object in coming to u e waa to get information on the cheap. I somqimes give advice, but unfortunately I do no, get paid for it. I did not understand what he meant by Mr Hanmer getting into a mess. Mr Duncan proposed to call Mrs Campbell. Mr Joynt objected to this; the guilt or innocence of the husband was material to be proved before the guilt or innocence of the defendant could be proved. It was necessary that Campbell’s guilt must first be proved, and as the indictment charged the defendant with assisting Campbell to fraudulently procure a certificate of title, and therefore the evidence of the witness now piuU« oo a must go to prove the guilt or innocence of Campbell before the charge of fraudulently assisting could be sustained. His Honor said that the principle of law was that the wife could not give evidence against her husband when it affected his liberty, but here the husband was not before the Court, nor could the evidence of the witness now proposed to be examined at all injure him. The law he thought did not shut the mouth of a wife in the interests of justice, but only as affected the liberty of her own husband. Mr Joynt quoted cases in support of his contention. (Cases cited—Rex against (I. dead; “Russell on Crime,” fourth edition, p 631; Reg. v Halliday; Rex v Inhabitants All Saints, Worcester, M. and S., 894.) His Honor said that if Mr Duncan pressed the case, and said that the evidence of Mrs Campbell was indispensable to his case, he would take her evidence, reserving the point for further consideration. Mr Duncan desired to quote from “ Taylor on Evidence,” section 1233, in support of his contention that the evidence should be received. He contended that the case of Rex v Glead was overruled by Regina v Halliday. His Honor did not think this, as the point had been reserved in compliance with the judgment in Rex v Glead. Mr Joynt wished to quote from “ Roscoe,” p 124; Rex v Hood, 1 ivloodie’s Crown Cases, 281, to strengthen his argument that the evidence should be rejected. His Honor said if he saw his way clear, and it was necessary, he would reserve the point, Mary Campbell—l know the defendant. In the month of June, 1874, I had a conversation with him at his office, in Christchurch. It was in his private office, I told him I was Mrs Campbell, and wished to apeak to him. The defendant said, “ Oh, yes; Campbell says he must have your advice ; what do women know of men’s affairs.” I said, “I have seen enough of this to know that you are leading my husband into danger.” He said, “ There is no danger; if there is we will share it equally in the family.” He said he had searched the registry and .the will of Whale, and had found no mention of that piece of land, He asked me if I knew how Whale’s money had been paid. I said I believed it had been paid in Hanmer and Harper’s office. He said, “ Oh, yes, Percival Pearce has pocketed the money and not made any entry of it,” I asked him to have any mistake in the deeds rectified, and that portion of land which belonged to us put under the new Act. I understood that a deed had been issued to my husband, giving him possession of two sec tions, when we were entitled only to a portion of one. He said my husband and him had agreed to share the profits provided he could get a clear title to it He said I was to look amongst my husband’s papers, and if I found anything referring to the land, I was to burn it, as he had all that was necessary. My husband is not in Christchurch. Some time after this, the latter end of July or beginning of August, I called in his office again, and he told me that there would be a clear title returned to my husband of the the land situated at Avonville, to the whole of the land. On 28th October, ray husband and Johnson waa in my garden, when I heard my husband accused Johnson of giving him a blank mortgage form. Johnson said it was not blank, and my husband said, “ You know what I mean; a printed form not filled up with writing, which you filled up afterwards and got me to sign.” Johnson’s reply was, “ Ah, my boy, I’m one too many for you.” He afterwards left, and returned later in the evening. As he passed the window he called to my husband. Mr Johnson said that from enquiries he had made they would have to take their own course. My husband said he was quite willing that things should take their own course. Johnson said his character was without a stain, and that my husband should bear the whole blame. The same evening defendant was sitting in my house when he told my husband if he would give him a property situate at Avonville, he would see him clear through the whole affair. My husband refused. I received a message from Mr Johnson stating that he wished to see me, and went down to his office. He read me a copy of a letter which he said he had sent to Messrs Fox and Banks. He said it would be very serious for my husband. I told him he had only him to blame for all the disgrace and trouble that he had brought on us; and that if my husband had gone to an honest broker’s office he would have come out an honester man. While we were talking a gentleman came into the office, and I heard him tell Johnson that a warrant had been issued for my husband. When Mr Johnson returned to the office I told him what I had heard. Ho told me to go home as quick as I could, and if I found my husband there, to tell him to go away. I did so, and my husband went. I have not seen him .since. In the course of that evening defendant came to ray house and asked if my husband had gone. I told him he had. We had a conversation about the property over which defendant held a mortgage for £BO. He said he would deal about that property with me the same as he would with any one in similar circumstances. I went to the office next morning early. I went to Mr Joynt’s office and saw Mr O’Neill there. Defendant told me if my husband

was apprehended he would send and let me know ; that he had retained Messrs Joyn l and O’Neill to defend them. He said I waste warn my husband not to say a word to implicate him (defendant), or he would make it hot for him. In November last I sawdefendant, and he asked me if I had heard from my husband. I told him I had heard from him, and was going to send to him. He asked me how I was supplied with money. I told him that I only had a little He said he would give me some to send to my husband, and that I was to call in at his office for it. I was to be sure to say that he had consulted a solicitor. He advised me to advise my husband to go to America, and to get him away by an American vessel which was in port. In December I called at the office to get an authority from defendant, as my husband’s agent. He said he would not give me any authority until his interest came due in January. In January I went to him, and he asked me if I would pay interest on the £BO mortgage and the £9O mortgage. I told him I did not recognise the £9O mortgage, and he then said he would sell the land. I asked him how it came to be that there was a £9O mortgage, as my husband had never got a farthing of it. He said if he came to know where my husband was he would send a part of it. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l never took notes of the conversation. I have had ouob bitter knowledge of these transactions and Mr Johnson’s conduct has ruined ray family, so that I think I ought to recollect it. I did not keep any record of the dates I have spoken of. Mr Duncan put in the Gazette dated January 31st, 1871, showing the boundaries of the Canterbury Land Transfer Act district, also the appointment of Mr Joshua Strange Williams as District Land Registrar. This was the case for the Crown. The Court adjourned until 10 a.m. thisday. Wednesday, July 28. The Court resumed at 10 this morning. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Duncan) reviewed the evidence for the prosecution at length, and contended that in view of the facts adduced the jury must convict the prisoner. Before the Crown Prosecutor had completed his address, his Honor directed his attention to the statute upon which the indictment was founded, and stated that, without deciding the. matter judicially, it would appear to be possible for a land broker to commit a fraud under the section, which would not render him liable, if the person for whom he was acting was not a party to such fraud. His Honour, therefore, would wish to enquire if he (the Crown Prosecutor) did not think, in order to sustain the indictment, that the Crown would require to prove fraud on the part of Campbell. Mr Duncan replied, that in view of the documentary evidence adduced by him, he contended that there was sufficient evidence of Campbell’s fraud. Mr Joynt then addressed the jury for the defence, He contended that Campbell might well have forgotten the circumstances of his having sold the land to Whale, because it was at a distant date, and might have entirely slipped his memory. He would desire with regard to Mrs Campbell’s evidence against the defendant to remind the jury that the law laid down the principle that a husband or wife were not permitted to give evidence for or against each other, when either was on their trial. Such a provision was, as they would see, a beneficial one for obvious reasons, in order to save the ends of justice being frustrated, and he should contend that the evidence of Mrs Campbell was not admissible, as although it was true that her husband was not on his trial, yet the question of Campbell’s guilt or innocence was so intimately connected and mixed up with the alleged fraud said to have been connived at by the defendant. It was, as they would see, necessary for the guilt or innocence of Campbell to be proved before they could either convict or acquit the defendant, because it was necessary that the fraud should be proved in order to connect defendant with the conveyance. Now, it was quite plain that the natural bias of the mind of Mrs Campbell would be in favour of her own husband, and against the defendant, whose interests she conceived conflicted with those of her husband. Therefore her natural inclination would be to clear her husband, and he held that the mode in which her evidence was given argued that it had been given over and over again before, so that it might be most favorable to her husband and most damaging to the defendant. It was, he held, the bounden duty of the jury to criticise her evidence most closely and carefully, because her evidence was composed of isolated conversations heal’d by her from time to time between defendant and her husband, and strung together so [as to present a connected whole. She had worked out this matter in her own mind, so as to bring out the continuous chain of evidence. The learned counsel then proceeded to comment upon the discrepancy in her evidence as to the dates upon which some of the circumstances were said to have occurred. His Honor—But, Mr Joynt, I shall be bound to tell the jury that the dates are not material. Mr Joynt quite agreed with this, but still the discrepancy of dates was one element in his contention to the jury that the evidence of Mrs Campbell should be received with extreme caution and criticised closely. It was most unfortunate for the defendant that the evidence led by the Crown was composed of com ersations at which only Mrs Campbell was present, and no other person. In order to clearly put the charge of fraud before the jury, the Crown Prosecutor should have shown not only that the deed to Whale had not come to light, but that the defendant had done something to keep the deed from coming to light. But what were the facts as disclosed by the evidence led by the Crown ? Why that the defendant by his own actions did really bring this deed to light ; thus if the Crown Pi’osecutors’ statement were correct, producing the evidence of his own fraud. The evidence disclosed the fact that Campbell knew the deed was in existence, but it was not connected with the defendant, because the latter had made every effort to find out the actual state of the title, and had never avoided publicity in the matter. If he had been guilty of the fraud charged, would he have quarelled with Campbell ? would he not rather have made terms with him ? But what did they find V Why that the defendant had written a letter to Banks and Fox (who were Whale’s trustees), and had seen them. In consequence of this the deed was taken by Banks to the Land Registrar, and the whole matter exposed, and a warrant issued for Campbell. Thus, in fact, the defendant was the real instrument in bringing the deed to light.

The Registrar had told the prisoner that it appeared there was an agreement for the sale of the land to Jessop, but the prisoner had replied that such agreement was never carried out. The Land Registrar had stated that his opinion was that the information given by the defendant to him that the agreement was not carried out, was derived by the defendant from Campbell. The defendant, when he found that there was a deed to Whale, immediately communicated with Pearce, the witness to the deed, with a view of finding out the whole matter. He wished the jury to look at this circumstance of the defendant going to Pearce, which, he contended, must be construed as showing that he was most anxious to find out the true state of the whole matter, and that when he so went, the defendant was evidently under the impression that there was a mistake in the preparation of the deed. But there was nothing in the evidence to connect the defendant with the knowledge of the fact that the deed by which Campbell had previously disposed of the property was in existence until he went to Pox and Banks. It was not sufficient for the Crown to raise the suspicion of such knowledge unless they were prepared to show this from clear evidence. There was no doubt that Campbell had misled the defendant as to the title, and the jury, he contended, must come to the conclusion that the defendant had a knowledge of the deed when making the application, before they could convict the prisoner. Mrs Campbell’s evidence having been stated by the Crown to be most material, should be strongly corroborated. The evidence of Mrs Campbell was that her husband had left in October, but she had chosen her own time to bring the matter forward, and after having ample time to make her evidence present the appearance of continuity, it had done. Mr McConnell’s evidence, he contended, was not corroborative of her testimony, nor was there any corroborative evidence whatever. It was true Mr Wynn Williams told the defendant that Campbell and he had been guilty of fraud, but it would not be gathered from that evidence that the defendant had committed the fraud charged, but it was more in respect to the mortgage which Campbell repudiated. He again asked the jury to look at Mrs Campbell’* evidence with all suspicion. because they must remember that the husband of the witness had left the province, that she had naturally a desire to shift the blame on to the shoulders of the defendant from those of her husband. Of course it was natural to suppose that the husband, writing to his wife, might say, “ If you can get Johnson into trouble by your evidence I can return to you and my family.” He urged upon them to consider the whole of the evidence, which showed that the defendant had acted throughout in the most open way; in fact, it was owing to the act of the defendant that the Land Registrar received the deed, upon which he issued a warrant for the arrest of Campbell. After a short adjournment, His Honor summed up. After detailing shortly the mode of procedure in bringing land under the Act, his Honor proceeded to say that if the jury found that the conduct of Campbell was fraudulent, it was the duty of the jury to examine the evidence to see whether the defendant was culpably connected with Campbell in the fraud. The learned counsel for the defendant had commented on the evidence of Mrs Campbell as coming under the reserve of the law as regarded husband and wife, and he (the Judge) went some way with him, that was, so far as Ibis—that the evidence of a woman naturally desirous of exculpating her husband, should be looked at with all due care, and tested by the evidence of witnesses about whose credibility there could not be the slightest doubt. Let them now look at the evidence outside that of the woman to see if it differed materially from that of the other witnesses. The evidence disclosed the fact that one Campbell, who was not before the Court, employed the defendant, who was by profession a land broker, to bring a certain piece of land under the Land Transfer Act, and an application under the Act was made on July 2cd by Campbell, averring that the only encumbrance on this land was an agreement to one Joseph Jessop, which had never been carried out, the signature to which application was witnessed by the defendant. This was not considered satisfactory by the District Land Registrar, now 1 is Honour Mr Justice Williams, and accordingly a declaration was made by Campbell, dated 3rd July, 1874, in which he stated that the agreement with one Joseph Jessop had not been carried out by him, and that no money beyond £5 had been paid. This was the first fraud charged by the Crown, who contended that the statement was false. It therefore became necessary for the jury to see whether the evidence 'bore out the statement, and whether the defendant was aware of this. The second fraud charged was, that there was a re-sale from Jessop to Whale, and the Crown contended that Campbell knew of this, and therefore the omission of this from the application constituted the second act of fraud. Now the jury were to decide from the evidence whether the defendant knew of the existence of this deed, and fraudulently assisted him to conceal such knowledge. The questions were—Did Campbell know of the exist 3uce of the completed agreement to Jessop, and the deed from Jessop to Whale ; and did the defendant know of such concealment ? If they judged this they would find the defendant guilty ; but if there was any reasonable doubt on this point they would acquit him, They would also have to consider the fact that the defendant had a mortgage for £9O from Campbell for bringing the land under the Act —a sum greatly in excess of the usual charge. They would now, having the points before their mind, consider the evidence given in the case with a view to see on which side the -weight of evidence preponderated. [His Honor then proceeded to read over and comment on the evidence in the case.] Commenting on the evidence given by Mrs Campbell, His Honor said that the learned counsel for the defence had put it to them that the witness would of course try to give a colour to her evidence as against the defendant. But while it was perhaps necessary from the very state of the facts that the jury should look closely into her evidence it was also necessary for them to remember her demeanor in the witness box and the cogency and relevancy with which her evidence was given. After going through the evidence in the case, his Honor said that it was not necessary for him to gojover the ground again. It was for the jury to consider whether Campbell was guilty of fraudulent practices with regard to the two circumstances, either as regarded the agreement to Jessop or the deed to Whale, and if so it was for the jury to say on the evidence whether the Crown had proved that the defendant had been

associated with Campbell, and that he fraudulently concealed his knowledge, first of the completion of the agreement, and secondly the execution of the deed to Whale. They were asked to do so on the evidence of the defendant’s conduct and conversation as detailed by Mr McConnell and Mrs Campbell. They had to consider this, and to say whether on the evidence they were of opinion that the defendant had acted in concert fraudulently with Campbell, that he had been associated with him for the purpose of fraud, knowing at the time of the existence of these documents, If they were of this opinion then they would find the prisoner guilty ; if, on tr.e other hand, their idea of the evidence was that there was a reasonable doubt of the matter, they would acquit the defendant. Of course, there was the object plainly enough, that it was necessary to bring the land under the provisions of the Act, but the questions to be decided were, first, if there was evidence of fraud on the Dart of Campbell, and if so, was tho defendant associated with him in such fraud with a guilty knowledge. The Jury retired at 2.30 p.m, to consider their verdict, and returned into Court at 3.30 with a verdict of “ Guilty.” The prisoner was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment without hard labour. The Court adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow. 1 :