THE CASE OF JOHN MURPHY.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2015, 9 August 1880, Page 2

THE CASE OF JOHN MURPHY.

At the Resident Court to-day John Murphy was charged, on remand, with felony. Mr Stringer appeared for the prosecution, and Mr McConuel for the defence. All witnesses were ordered out of Court. John Hodgson, farmer, Oust, deposed that he had a farm at West Oxford until lately, and in January last had some money dealings with prisoner. He borrowed money on an agricultural lien over crops and a bill of sale over crops. When they were harvested he negotiated with prisoner for their sale and sent him a letter and some samples. Some letters passed between them, and as he had sent a bailiff to witness’s place witness went to see him and asked why he had sent the bailiff. Prisoner said he had not heard from him or received his letter aceeptiong the pries of the grain and wanted an agreement. He then wrote out the agreement (produced) and witness signed it. It was not in the same condition now as when signed, “ Christchurch, April 3rd, 1830,” having been added. Witness never knew of or consented to those words being added, the first time he knew of it being the fact that transpired in the Court a short time ago. It was written out in Mr Murphy’s office, Cashel street. Prisoner, witness, and his wife were present when it was signed. There was no difference between the agreement as he signed it and what was proposed in the letters of negotiation. Nor hud witness ever sanctioned any change of terms. This was signed on April 3rd, and he next saw him a fortnight afterwards, when ha wont to settle up. He said the wheat was not according to the sample, and asked witness to knock 6d a bushel off. He objected to this, but agreed to knock 6d off afterwards, which was accepted, and he next saw Murphy at West Oxford. He reckoned up and made the claim £69. and witness made the amount due to him £77, and prisoner then said he had not got the empty bags and could not settle. Witness cams down again a week afterwards, but did not get a settlement. He received another account from Murphy, and claimed £6 16s Si from prisoner. Murphy said he hud a receipt for £7O. He made no observation regarding the alteration of contract for delivery, and took no objection to the bill on that t«ore. No settlement was come to, end he sued him in the Magistrate’s Court. Cross examined—The first dealings he had with Murphy were in the month of January. There was no mention in the agricultural lein as to where the grain was to be delivered. After witness had written the letters of 13th and 350 h March, and received Murphy’s letters in reply, he did not try to sell the grain or any portion of it to any other person. He sent, Mr Moir, a sample at the same time he had sent one to Murphy, and told prisoner of his having done so. After he sold the grain to Murphy ho sold the seconds to a neighboring farmer. When the agreement was signed on the 3rd April there was no one present except Murphy, witness, hia wife, and a boy. He did not agree to deliver it in Christchurch, which place was never mentioned. The price Murphy had agreed to give him for delivery at West Oxford was the prevailing price. The bailiff said Murphy had sent him up, and when witness asked him hia authority he produced a bill for £73. The account ho gave to Murphy for £6 16s 8d was a balance given for grain after deducting £7O, and another. Bo examined—No demand was made for tho delivery of the grain at Christchurch. By tho Court—He had received nothing when this agreement was signed. G-. li. Mellisb, E.M., Christchurch, remembered a case of Hodgson v Murphy in May last, when accused was defendant. He gave evidence on his own behalf. Plaintiff sued for price of grain, giving him credit for a gum advanced, The grain was stated by Murphy to have been bought by him at certain prices, for delivery in Christchurch, and in support thereof he'produced what purported to bo an agreement put between himself and Hodg sou. In looking over the agreement it struck witness that a certain portion of it was written at different time to the main body of the agreement. The place of delivery at Christchurch, with date, had cot been inserted previously. Witness iiuestioced concerning it, and he eaid that was inserted by special authority of Hodgson. He said the grain not turning out in accordance with sample that Hodgson had agreed to, delivered it at Christchurch instead of Oxford. In the hearing of the case in July last, the letters produced were put into the hands of accused, and admitted by him to ha in his handwriting. In May last, when the first case was heard, Murphy called a bailiff named Watt, but witness could not remember his evidence. Further evidence was taken. There was also a second charge of perjury against accused, arising out of the same matter. He was fully committed for trial on both charges.