ALLEGED PERJURY.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2018, 12 August 1880, Page 3

ALLEGED PERJURY.

Thia case was commenced yesterday at the Resident Magistrate's Court before Mr Mellish, E.M., and Mr J. K. Parker : George Hodgson, farmer, Oust, was summoned, on the information of John Murphy, on a charge of having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in the case of Murphy v Hodgson, heard in the Eesidenfc Magistrate's Court, Ohristehurch, in July last. Mr McOonnel appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Stringer for the defence. G. L. Mellish, 8.M., said that on the 29th July last he heard a suit of John Murphy v Gaorge Hodgson. The plaint contained an item of £3 3s 101 for carriage of

jjrain from Oxford to Christchuroh, and de. fendant, on oath, deposed that he was not liable, inasmuch as he agreed with Murphy that the grain should be delivered at Oxford, and with reference to the agreement, defendant swore that the words "at Christchurch" were not inserted when he signed. Cross-examined — He swore that neither the date nor Christchurch were inserted with his knowledge. John Murphy, corn dealer ,deposed that on the 3rd April last he saw aocused, and arranged for the purchase of some grain, which was to be delivered at the railway station, Christchurch. When this arrangement was made there were present —witness, accused, Michael Murphy, and Watt, a bailiff. The agreement produced was the one

made and signed then, with the exception of the words at Christchurch and the date. There was a dispute about having it delivered at Christchurch, and witness said if it was not he would not remove the bailiff in charge of Hodgson's place. Aocused said rather than have any noise about it, he would deliver the grain at the price agreed upon, and he told witness he could put the words at Christchurch and date in the agreement. Witness sent accused letters on the 13th and 22nd March, offering what he thought a fair price for delivery at. Christohurcb. It was in consequence of what witness heard about accused negotiating with some one else that he sent a bailiff up, and after the agreement was signed in his shop he withdrew the bailiff, otherwise, if Hodgson had not agreed to deliver at Christchurch, he would not have withdrawn the bailiff. Accused was dissatisfied when he came to witness's store, and there were some high words between them. Cross-examined—Witness at present stood committed for trial for forgery and perjury. He had been told by the Court that he was not to be believed on his oath. He sent the bailiff to Hodgson's place after he had written the letters referred to. Witness could not swear whether the date, 3rd April, wae inserted in the agreement when Hodgson signed. The words "at Christchurch" were omitted then accidentally, but he had told Hodgson the delivery was to be at Christchurch. He could not remember having said that the alteration of delivery took place because the bulk was not equal to his samples. Witness, in the letters written on the 13th and 22nd of March, accepted Hodgson's terms for delivery at Oxford, but he could not say whether those letters formed a binding agreement. Witness gave evidence on his own behalf in the action brought by

Hodgson against him in May last. He could not remember whether he then said anything about the alteration of contract or the place of delivery being at Ohristchurch. Bememfaered being in his office prior to the action, but did not remember making him an offer to settle the action, or authorising his brother Michael to settle it. "While the case was before the Court he did not recollect ever having called evidence to prove the place of agreement. After the contract was signed, Hodgson agreed to take sixpence off the wheat. James Watt, bailiff, was present at Murphy's store on the 3rd April last, when accused signed the agreement. After a conversation between the parties Hodgson offered to sell Murphy the grain, and a contract was signed. On coming out Hodgson said sooner than have any trouble about it the grain would be delivered by him at Christohurch. As accused was going away Murphy called out, " Bemember the grain is to be delivered at {Ohristchurch, and I will enter it in the agreement to that effect." Cross-examined—Witness was at Murphy's place till two on the day in question. He fave evidence in the case heard last May, but id not then state about the place of delivery, because he was not asked. When Hodgson went away Michael Murphy came to the store. Witness was in the police force for some time, and permitted to resign for breach of discipline. He was fined for receiving a gratuity, on several occasions for drunkenness, but could not swear whether he was ever fined for inflicting unnecessary violence on a prisoner, or for neglect of duty, or for beiDg absent from duty without leave. He might have been. He had been employed by the Bailway Department in 1879 as a detective, the result being that one Fowler was put on trial. Witness an that occasion made a wager of_ five to one that the man would be convicted, and Judge Johnston severely admonished him. Michael Murphy, commission agent, saw accused at his brother's store in April last. Witnesß heard his brother say, bear in mind this corn is to be delivered in Ohristchurch. Hodgson said something in reply, but witness could not say what it was. Cross-examined — Witness had twice been committed to take his trial, once for conspiracy to defraud, once for obtaining money under false pretences, and other minor offences. He did net think it was the place to ask him whether he had ever been told by the Bench that he was not to be believed. George McMunn, bailiff, was at the place of accused on the 2nd April last at the instance of John Murphy to ask for payment of £75 or take possession. He saw accused digging potatoes, and after reading the document to his wife he returned it to witness, remarking that he did not owe Murphy £75, and that he would ehoot Murphy and be hung for it before it would he paid. He told witness he had sold the crop and it would be delivered at Oxford. He then left for town with his wife, and returned on Sunday, when he brought witness instructions to leave. This was the case for the prosecution, and the further hearing was adjourned until to-day.

Thubsday, August 12. [Before G. L. Melliah, Esq., 8.M., and J. E. Parker, Esq., J.P.] AM-bsbd Pbbjuby.—George Hodgson was charged, on remand, with perjury, when the case for the defence was proceeded with. Walter Stringer deposed that he was a solicitor of the Supreme Court, and had acted for Hodgson from the commencement of the present proceedings. On the instruction of Hodgson he sued John Murphy this year for the price of the grain, giving him credit for certain money and other things. The filaint showed a balance in his client's favour or some £l4. A day or two before the plaint was heard John Murphy came to his office told witness he would settle the action, and made him an offer of a sum of money which witness declined. On the day before the case was heard at the Besident Magistrate's Court he again wanted to settle, and his brother, Michael, also made him an offer, which he declined. After the hearing of the caso judgment was given for plaintiff for £l2 odd. At the hearing of the case Murphy set up a claim again Hodgson, and stated that the grain had been agreed to be delivered at Ohiistchurch, producing in support thereof the agreement already put in. Witness challenged him at the time with having altered it by adding the words " at Christchurch," and he said that he had not. On being pressed he said they might not lhave been inserted at exactly the same time as the other. Witness then produced Murphy's letters to Hodgson, and asked him how ne explained the difference between the letters and the agreement. He could not explain. He never suggested that the agreement contained in the letters had been altered by any subsequent arrangement with Hodgson. Witness stated to the Court then >that it looked as though forgery had been committed, and he still never attempted to explain. He called the witness Watt, and asked him a number of questions, not one of which related to the contract. The matter at issue in that action had been before the Court now four times, and on each occasion Murphy had refuted this case without calling any evidence but his own with reference to the contract for grain. On the 29th July witness again asked a question of John Murphy as to the alteration of the agreement, and he answered, " I believe that the words ' at Christchurch ' were added subsequently on the same day." At first he said, "I would not awear that they were." Witness then asked Murphy the reason of the alteration, and he answered, " When I showed defendant these samples ha said the bulk was not as Sood as the samples, and he agreed to sliver the grain at Ohristchurch, at the same price I was to pay for it at Oxford." Crossexamined—On one or two occasions Murphy was non-suited. In the first case, in May, he ww not represented by a solicitor. When

witness obtained judgment in Hodgson v Murphy the Court directed that the money should remain in Court until Murphy brought a cross-action against Hodgson. That money was not still in the Court. G. L. Melliish, B.M.,'gave evidence similar to that given by him in a former hearing of the case. Mr Stringer asked if he knew what was the reputation or character of aocused and Miohael Murphy. Mr Stringer quoted from Taylor on Evidence to show that he was justified in asking witness what he considered the reputation of John and Miohael Murphy to be, and further what credence he would attaoh to their testimony. The question was objected to by Mr McOonnel, but allowed by his Worship. Witness, in reply, said that he would not believe a word John or Michael Murphy stated on oath. Counsol for the defence then

addressed the Court, and confined himself almost exclusively to the question of credibility or otherwise- of witnesses for the prosecution. He exposed tho inconsistencies of their statements, and commented in strong terms regarding them. The bailiff Watts was not to be believed, and was possessed of a list of accom-

plishments that formed the sum total of a blackguard. The two Murpbys wore the most notorious liars and accomplished scoundrels that ever disgraced a witness box. _ Mr McConnel replied, arguing that tho evidence warranted a committal. His Honor—There is no doubt whatever that this information was not laid until after the prosecutor was committed for trial, though it is stated by the counsel for the prosecution that he had instructions to lay it a week before, bat at that very time Murphy knew perfectly well that an action was or would be corncommenced against him for perjury. He was aware of that, and may then, as a sort of setoff, have given instructions to his solicitor, or requested him to say whether he should not lay oi information against Hodgson for perjury, simply, I believe, in order to break down the case against himself. The information appears to be a piece of malice, and as to the evidenoe which has been given it is extremely questionably whether a jury would convict upon it. The evidence of the brothers Mur-

phy is thoroughly unreliable, and Watte' evidence does not show what the agreement was. It appears to me that there cannot be a prima facie case against both the men, Hodgson and Murphy. It is clear if Murphy is guilty of perjury Hodgson is innocent, and on the other hand if Hodgson committed perjury Murphy must be innocent; there cannot be a prima facie case against them both. Murphy is committed to take his trial for the very same offence charged against Hodgson, and it appears to me that the Bench would be doing wrong to commit Hodgson, except on the strongest grounds, until the case against Murphy has been decided. I am in some difficulty about the matter, and have endeavored to find out whether there is a precedent for it, but the Crown Prosecutor informs me that he has never heard of a case of a similar nature, and I think it would be unwise, unjust, and absolutely wrong to convict the present accused until Murphy's case has been decided, except on the strongest grounds, and these grounds do not appear. The evidence given for the prosecution is totally unreliable, and the remainder of it very much open to question. The case will be dismissed.