MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1231, 13 February 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTOHURCH. Wednesday, February 13. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Drunk and Disorderly. Richard Harper was fined 20s ; Bridget Ferrick, 20s ; Mary Ann Kirkwood, 20s j and Mary Maule, 40s. Joseph McNeill, for being drunk and using obscene language in front of the Theatre, was fined 20s. A first offender was fined ss. Perjury.—Mary O'Connell answered to her bail on the remanded charge of having on the 9th instant committed perjury at the Resident Magistrate's Court, Christchurch, during the hearing of an interpleading case, Wanlace v the Court bailiff, arising out of s> case Wood, Shand and Co. v Mary O'Connell. Mr Joynt appeared for the accused. Walter Martin, assistant clerk at the Court, produced the plaint of the interpleader in which Mrs Wanlace claimed the goods seized. The case had been heard before Mr Mellish on Saturday, 9th instant. Accused had been called as a witness on behalf of Mrs Wanlace. She was duly sworn before giving her evidence, but could not say whether by the bailiff or Court ordcriy. According to the notes taken, accused stated that she carried on business in Colombo street, and had sold the business about a fortnight before. She said she was paid the previous Monday in notes—one £5, and the balance in single notes. She signed a receipt produced on the Wednesday, and which is marked B. She had since paid some of the money away. She said she had reeeived £6O. She was going to send her boxes to Timaru, but afterwards changed her mind Mrs Wanlace and she had gone to the landlord after the bailiffs came in. She had signed receipts marked A and "B, and swore that the signature to both receipts were her's. No conversation took place between Mrs Wanlace and herself —as stated by the former—regarding receipt B for £2O. She did not hand the £2O to Mrs Wanlace as shown in receipt B, and that she had received £BO altogether, viz., £6O first and £2O afterwards. That receipt B was given for £2O paid for furniture and fixings. There was neither a £2O nor a £lO note amongst the £6O. She had offered to pay Mrs Wanlace her money back, but she had refused to take it. In crossexamination, accused said she did not count; the £6O herself, and had previously paid £22 for the goodwill of the place. She had got £BO altogether for the business, and the £2o—portion of that—was for what there was in the house when she left. In reply to Mr Cowlishaw accused said that the signature to the receipt was her's, but the other receipt signed by her on the Thursday had a stamp on it. The latter receipt when produced in Court had no stamp on it. Tho Magistrate decided that the goods claimed should be given over to Mrs Wanlace, and the accused was given into custody on a charge of perjury. In reply to Mr Joynt as to what portion of the evidence was considered perjury, Inspector Hickeon slid that accused had wanted to make it appear that she had only received £2O for her business to deceive her creditors by showing this receipt, and had afterwords admitted in the witness-box tint she had received £BO for the goods. R. McKnight, head bailiff at the Court, deposed to administering the oath to the accused on the 9th instant, in the usual manner in an interpleader caEe of Wanlace v the Court bailiff. The witness repeated the substance of the evidence given by the previous witness as to what accused had stated with reference to the receipt given by her. Accused also stated several times in reply to distinct questions that she had not provided or paid the £2O. Ellen Wanlace called, stated that she was keeping a fruit shop in Colombo street, lately occupied by accused. Purchased the goodwill of and goods, fixtures and furniture in the shop. The purchase was finally settled and money paid on last Monday week, 4th instant. Agreed to give her £6O for the lot. The receipt produced for £6O, marked A, is the one witness got, and it was signed by the accused in the presence of witnesses after the money was paid. Witness then took possession. Accused remained in the house for a few days afterwards. On the 7th inst., when the bailiffs came in and took possession, accused told witness that if Wood, Shand and Co. that Bhe had received £6O, they would get it all out of her, and asked witness to make out a receipt for £2O, as if that was all the money she had received for the goods. Accused said she would then go to that firm and offer them the £2O to clear her off. A man named Tomkin was present during the marking of the receipt for £2O. Witness did give tho accused a receipt produced, marked B, for tho £2O as requested. Witness made out the receipt. This was on the 7th in6t. Accused took out £2O out of her pocket, and handed it to witness, and the money was returned to her again. Tomkiu was present when accused handed witness the £2O, and when it was re-, turned to her. Witness did not hear accu&ni give her evidence. Was certain she had oslygiven accused £6O for the business. 34. wa* Mrs O'Connell who fetched Toinkin, to tbei bouse tiwt day. Witness understock fro© *.

onversation with accuied that it was Tomkin ho had advisfd her what to do, as when she BOt the summons fho said she must go and ■eo what he thought abont the matter. Accused signed the receipt for the £2O that witness made out. William Tomkin, boardinghouse keeper in Cambridge* terrace, called, stated that he wss at Mr 3 O'Connell s Bhop on the day the biiliffs went in. He went there twice that day. When there m the morning Mrs O'Connell asked him to come again to give her a hand. She did not come or send for him as far as he could remember. When he was outside some person in the room called him in, and on going inside he observed money lying on the table. He was asked to count the money, and found there was £2O in the bundle. Witn ss, after counting the money, gave it to Mrs 0 Connell. Why he did so was becauae he underitood it was for furniture in the house. Believed the receipt was started before witness left the room. It was lying on the table at the time. The receipt produced is the one, and bears witness's signature. Could not say where the money came from, as he understood it was a payment of £2O from Mrs Wanlace to Mrs O'Connell for furniture purchased. He hud an idea, however, that the money was ju*t passed as a sham. Witness went outside, so that he should not see the money. Did not propose that this money should be eo handed over. He did suggest when asked that the best plan would be to make out a fresh receipt for the £2O. When a question was put whether witness knew of the whole 'of the circumstance?, Mr Joynt objected to the manner in which the witness was being cross-examined by the prosecution. His Worship said that on a previous occasion the witness only answered questions under a threat that he would be locked up. Mr Joynt submitted that the line of crossexamination was not a proper one for the prosecution to take. In reply to his Worship, the witness said that when the receipt was being made out he believed it was a sham receipt, and although believing eo he could not say why it was made out as he was not present at the previous conversation. When he was asked by the women about the things being taken away, was the time he suggested the roceipt being given as the best courao to Srevent this being done. Constable Brookes, iourt orderly, called, deposed to being in the Court part of the time when the interpleader case was heard. Saw accused m the witness box. This witness corroborated the evidence generally as to what accused had stated with referenco to the money transactions between herself and Mrs Wanlace. Afterwards witness arreßted the accused, and when she started to mnke a rambling statement he told her it would be better Jnot say anything, and to hold her tongue. This was the whole of the evidence. In reply to Mr Joynt, his Worship said he would commit the accused. Mr Joynt said the case would never go before the jury in this world. There was no element of perjury in the whole case, as there was no corroboration of Mrs Wanlace's evidence, and besides there was no materiality throughout. In the public interest he thought it would be a pity if the case were sent for trial, as it would be torn to tatters before it ever reached a jury. His Worship said there was the evidence of the man Tomkin. He would eond the case to a jury. After the depositions had been read over, accused reserved her defence by advice of her counsel, and was fully committed to take her trial at the next criminal «e3sion of the Supreme Court. On Mr Joynt's application, his Worship said he would grant b+il in two sureties of £SO each, accused in £IOO.