SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 716, 5 October 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Thursday, October 5. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) PERJURY. The hearing of the case Regina v Norman Evans was resumed. Mr Joynt opened the case for the defence. He intended, he might say,-to bring evidence to prove that on the day the prisoner was said to have marked the stirrup leathers in Smethursfc's stable ; he was away from Kaia poi, and did not return until after the evening train from Ohrischurch came in. The following evidence was then given for the defence : James Boot, confectioner, in Christchurch, deposed to the prisoner being in hisshop in High street on the 6th July, between three and four o'clock in the afternoon. Cross-examined by Mr Duncan—Witness had become bail for prisoner, and was relying upon his own recollection as to fixing the date. He might be in error, but he did not think bo. His recollection was called to the 6th July by the prisoner sometime in August when he was under recognizances. Robert Niven deposed that he was a butcher residing in Kaiapoi, and on the sth July he saw the prisoner leave for Christchurch by the traiD. Witness did not see prisoner again until after the five o'clock train from Christchurch came in. He then went to witness's shop and purchased some meat, of which witness made an entry in his book. ■■_• '-,

Margaret Dale deposed that she resided in Kaiapoi. Prisoner lodged with her mother. On the 6th of July witness remembered going to Christchurch with the prisoner by the first train. Witness returned by the halfpa&J; twelve train, but the prisoner did not. She had no doubt as to the date. Witness did not again see prisoner until after the last train from town had arrived.

Cross-examined by Mr Duncan—The prisoner had asked her to come forward and state that she was in Christchurch on the sth with him. She knew the date because she had some work to finish by the Bth ; it was for a friend. She could not tell the name of the friend. It was for herself.

His Honor pointed put to the witness that she had flatly contradicted herself. Had she any explanation to offer ? * - Witness—The work was to give away to a friend. His Honor asked what was the name of this friend ?

Witness—lt was given to a gentleman named Wilson. It was a cushion. Mr Wilson had gone home to England and taken the cushion with him. His Honor asked the witness to state who William Wilson was. -Was it the Christchurch William Wilfton ? If the witness told the truth there could be no shame in the matter.. T *

Examination continued—Did not know Wilson much. He was a single -man. He had not, she believed, been paying his addresses to her. Witness gave the cushion to Wilson because he had seen one of her making, and had asked her to make him one. Her mother did not know that she had made the cushion.

His Honor enquired if therewas>any pne to whom witness could refer, so that something might be >found out respecting Mr Wilson. 'lt seemed very peculiar that a gentleman should be met like this, a cushion made, and then he disappear mysteriously, Witness -replied in the negative".- . She met Wilson in the train, and he asked' her foi a cushion. He said he had seen a cushion made by. her, and would like one similar.'

His Honor cautioned the witness as to the statement she was making. She sorely did not mean to tell the Court and that she had met a gentleman for the first time in a train, and that he had asked her to make a cushion for him, to which she had consented. Had the witness any explanation to offer 1 Witness said that she had none"; ,

By the Court—The prisoner came to lodge withrher mother twelve months last May. He is a single man* She met Mr Wilson in Kaiapoi, and gave the cushion to him. It was on a Saturday evening. Witness worked the cushion at home. Her mother 5 did not know of her working the cushion. Witness made no appointment to meet him again. Mr Wilson gave witness.a locket in return for the cushion.' She had it with her now.

Elizabeth Hewson, wife of the railway gatekeeper at Kaiapoi, deposed to the prisoner borrowing a'ehilling from her husband on the 6th July to pay his fare to Christchurch. Shortly after the five o'clock train came in, the prisoner was at their heuse, and returned the shilling* ;.Witness was positive as to date, because the Bible man called for -the instalment of the price of the Bible, the day after. The card of the Bible man bore the date 6th July. Mary Dale deposed that the [prisoner lodged at her house. She remembered her daughter Margaret coming up from Christchurch. It was on July sth. Witness came to town that day, leaving Kaiapoi by the 2 p.m. train, and met prisoner in High street about 3 p.m. They went home together by the afternoon train. On reaching Kaiapoi prisoner went to Mr Niven's, the butcher. Cross-examined by Mr Duncan—Her daughter went to Ohristchurch for some velvet and things to make a cushiou. She. makes and sells the cushions. Witness could not say that.she saw her daughter make the cushion given to Wilson. She did not know anything of the Mr William Wilson to whom her daughter had given the cushion.. Witness knew a good many Wilsons. Her daughter might know the Mr Wilson, though witness did not. Thomas East deposed that shortly after the perjury case against prisoner was heard at the Resident Magistrate's Court, Smethurst spoke to witness about Evans. Smethurst said to witness, "Wasn't that a nice trap w*e laid for the old boy." This was after witness had looked from the stall in the stable to see if he could see into the room. He coulrl not. He could see into the stall from the room. Smethurst told witness that it was a nice trap for prisoner, their se iog him in the stall..' " Cross-examined by Mr Duncan—Witness understood that Smethurst meant by a trap, the looking on at prisoner whilst in the stall of the stable.

William Whittaker deposed that in -Jane last a cheque in the hands of Mr Braddell, for whom witness was working, was stopped by prisoner. Braddell told witness that prisoner was a very clever fellow though a ?reafc scamp, but he would try to fix him yet, as he (Braddell) was as clever as prisoner.;; He said this two or three times. There appeared to be a great deal of spite in fhe toue Braddell spoke. It was said in a way that fixed it on witness' memory, and seemed to be ?cry spiteful, Ihe Bteteaeats

were made by Braddell to witnew before the perjury case was tried at Kaiapoi. Cross-examined by Mr Duncan—The expressions used by Braddell were used in consequence of the cheque being stopped. A remark bad been made by Braddell that a larger cheque had been previously stopped by prisoner, and it would be .better to summon at once. Witness was discharged by Braddell on account of shortness of work. He had since been working with prisoner. Witness had not the slightest misunderstanding with Braddell prior to his leaving him.

Mr Joy nt intimated that his case had closed. • His Honor-then recalled Inspector Barsham, who deposed that the information against prisoner for perjury was laid at the instance of the Besident Magistrate, and not Smethurst. Mr Duncan -then proceeded to call rebutting evidence as to the alibi set up by the prisoner. Constables Smart and Haldane were called to prove that they saw prisoner; in Kaiapoi before 5 p.m; "oh July 6th. This closed the whole case. After/the adjournment had expired, Mr Joynt proceeded at great length to address the jury for the defence, commenting on the evidence given in the case. ■ Mr Duncan, replied on behalf of the Crown.- ' f^ f Left sitting. J ~',.',.