SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 945, 5 July 1877, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Thursday, July 5. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The Court re-assembled at 10 a.m. PERJURY.

The hearing of the case of Eegina v Henderson was proceeded with. The following evidence was taken : Thomas Bateman Missen—l am clerk to Bench at Akaroa. I produce the plaint-book. On April 25th a plaint was entered in the case of Watkins v Adams. I served a summons on defendant in that case, of which the one produced is a copy. His Honor —Have you the original of the summons ? Witness —No. His Honor —Did you serve a notice to produce the original summons, Mr Duncan? Mr Duncan —No, your Honor. His Honor—According to strict law, Mr Duncan, a copy ought not to be produced unless notice has been served to produce the original. Do you take any objection to this, Mr Harper? Mr Harper —I do, your Honor. Mr Duncan —I contend, your Honor, that this is not a copy at all. It is one of the original summonses, signed by the clerk to the Bench. His Honor—How can that be, Mr Duncan? By the statute there cannot be two summonses. The one served upon the defendant in the case is the only one that is recognised by statute. The other is simply a copy retained in order that affidavit may be made of service in case of the non-appearance of the defendant. It is not even a certified copy. However, Mr Harper, I do not think it affects this case much, as the defendant having appeared, the jurisdiction is admitted. Cross-examined by Mr Harper —The document produced is the original. His Honor —Let me see the summons and the plaint book. How do you get the word "auctioneer," witness? Witness —It comes from the form your Honor.

His Honor—What form ? It seems to me that you have filled up the form from your own knowledge. It is a most irregular proceeding altogether, for a clerk to insert an thing like this. For all you know this might make a difference. This might be some one else.

Witness —There is no column for calling, in the plaint book. His Honor —Wort that does not relieve you of your duty, and that of all magistrates' clerks to enter up the callings, in any cases which may come before them. To have a clerk inserting callings out of his own knowledge is exceedingly irregular, and one which cannot be allowed. It will be seen that now there is a variance in the summons and plaint book.

After consulting the Act, His Honor said that he had been labouring under a mistake when he mentioned that the statute provided that callings should be inserted. In the form given in the Act it was suggested, but it was not made compulsoi'y in the enacting clause. In making the remarks he had, he assumed that Mr Harper had been reading from the statute. Of course if the Government forms were misleading the clerks, it would be. a very hard thing to blame them. The fact was that there was a variance between the enacting clause and the schedule. This was frequently the case with reference to their statutes, and also, he believed, in connection with the English Acts. The clerk, however, should not take the information from his own knowledge, but should take it from the party only, as he might be issuing it to a wrong person. "Mr Harper —I may say, your Honor, that they are most particular in the Cqurt in Ohristohurch. They will not issue a summons without the whole of the particulars being submitted by the plaintiff.

His Honor—Very proper too. This closed the case for the Crown.

Mr Harper called the following evidence for the defence :

James Struthers Williams—l am a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court. I acted as counsel for Mr Adams at Akaroa, on the trial of the civil case Watkins v Adams. _ The prisoner was called by Mr Nalder, the solicitor for the plaintiff. There was an adjournment for lunch, and on the Court resuming Mr Nalder applied for a summons to issue, calling upon the prisoner and Mrs Adams to attend and give evidence. The prisoner did not hear any evidence before she was put in the box. She was examined by Mr Nalder and crossexamined by Mr Inwood, who appeared for Mr Montgomery. The status of the latter was that he stated to the 'magistrate that if the name of Mr Montgomery's son came tip, he was there to watch the case.

His Honor —Did you ever hear of such a thing before ? Witness —Never, your Honor. His Honor —It is a most remarkable thing for a Magistrate to allow such a thing to take place. Witness —I objected to Mr Inwood taking the prisoner by surprise, and he said that this was what he wanted to do. Mr Duncan—ls that evidence ? His Honor—Certainly, Mr Duncan. It was in the presence of the prisoner. Witness —Mr Nalder did not ask leave to treat the prisoner as a hostile witness. He asked the witness whether, if Mr Watkins had said that she purchased goods at the store, was it true or false. The prisoner replied that it was false. She was never asked particularly as to a black satin petticoat. She was not called by me on behalf of the defendant. I believe Mrs Adams was asked about a black satin petticoat. She was asked by Mr Nalder, and also by the Bench. The prisoner was in Court at the time, I believe. Mrs Adams was called after the prisoner was examined. Neither of them were re-called before the case was closed. I may state that I took exception to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under the splitting section of the Act. It appeared from the plaintiff's ledger that my client's account amounted to £75, and that the excess had not been abandoned in the usual wav. Mr Watkins was examined, and stated that the petticoat was supplied on the date mentioned in the bill. The date there was 12th July, 1875. Mrs Watkins was not examined.

Cross-examined by Mr Duncan —There was no separate account in "the plaintiff's book. There was a memorandum in the margin showing what account should be sent to MiAdams and what to Mrs Adams. The plaintiff, I may say, could not show a separate account in his ledger. The articles of jewellery had been picked out, to which I objected. Mr George Harper then proceeded to address the jury on behalf of the prisoner. Mr Duncan having replied on behalf of the Crown, His Honor summed up, and the jury after some consideration returned a verdict of "Not Guilty." The prisoner was then discharged. This concluded the criminal business.