THE MURPHY AND WATT PERJURY CASE.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2083, 27 October 1880, Page 2

THE MURPHY AND WATT PERJURY CASE.

At the Police Court this morning, before A. Lean and H. P. Lance, Etqs,, J.P.’s, Michael Murphy was charged with false swearing to certain statements at the trial for forgery at the Supreme Court of John Murphy on October 6th last.

Mr Stringer appeared for the prosecution, Mr McOonnel for the accused.

A. B. Bloxam, Deputy Begistrar of the Supreme Court, produced the record of the said trial.

James Plunkett, reporter on the “Lyttelton Times" staff, was present at the trial o£ Murphy, and took notes of the evidence given at the same. Referring to those notes, he read over Murphy’s statement, in which the latter related what he said was said by John Murphy at a conversation with one Hodgson, in or near the store of Murphy, on Saturday, April 3rd. Tbe substance of the evidence, affecting this case was, that an alteration made in a certain agreement had been authorised by Hodgson. When this much had been read, Mr Stringer said that was all he proposed reading of the evidence.

Mr McOonnel, however, insisted on the whole being read. Witness accordingly road out a long series of questions and their answers, which had passed, bringing out particulars of M. Murphy’s previous life. These were irrelevant to present case.

Witness, in cross-examination, said the notes contained, substantially, everything that was said by Murphy. They did not purport to be the exact words, but they conveyed exactly what witness understood Murphy to moan, and witness bad no recollection of anything else being said. Witness read his notes of his Honor Judge Johnston’s remarks on the evidence heard at the trial. £Hia Honor said “ Officer, don't allow M. Murphy or Watt the witnesses to go out of Court. There has been a deliberate conspiracy to procure evidence to get the prisoner acquitted. I am going to consider whether I shall not direct that M. Murphy and Watt shall be taken into custody

and prosecuted for perjury.”] Hie Honor did not order accused into custody. After the trial of J. Murphy there appeared in the “Star” a leading article reflecting on the character of both the Murphys, but witness knew nothing of its authorship, George Hodgson, the prosecutor of John Murphy for forgery at the last session of the Supreme Court, stated that some of the evidence given by M. Murphy at that trial was not in accordance with fact. Witness did not on April 3rd last, at au . interview in or near to Murphy’s store utter any words which could be construed into an authorisation for J. Murphy to alter or add to the wording of an agreement which existed between them. M. Murphy was not present, near enough, to bear anything that passed at that interview. Cross examined—Witness said he had never been in Adelaide ; he was never charged there with cattle stealing. He had not been promised a sum of money if M. Murphy was convicted. He heard that a ‘‘memorial” was to be got up to recoup him his expenses at these trials. He had not received anything for the part he had taken in the trial of J. Murphy. Mary Ann Hodgson said she was present at a meeting with her husband and J. Murphy at the store of the latter on October 3rd last. Crossexamined—An agreement was then made in writing between ths men about the sale of some grain; she did not remember the contents of it. After its writing, no word was said by J. Murphy referring to the insertion of an addition to the agreement. Murphy did not follow her and her husband out of the store when they left it. She did not see anybody near the store in the street. [These questions referred to matters deposed to by M. Murphy, at the trial of John Murphy, his statements concerning them being the occasion of this prosecution.] Witness had never been in Adelaide. She had never heard of a subscription being got up for her husband. This closed the case for the prosecution. The evidence was then read over, Mr McConnell declined to call any witnesses. On being duly cautioned, accused reserved his defence, and he was fully committed for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court.

Mr MoConnel applied for renewal of the bail at which accused bad been held.

Mr Stringer opposed. He thought the remarks of Judge Johnston and the verdict of the jury in the case of John Murphy clearly showed what was likely to be the issue of this prosecution. He thought that in the face of his aptitude for conspiracy accused ought not to be allowed to be at large. If sent to gaol he would have every opportunity of transacting business with his legal advisers.

Mr MoOonnel protested against the unusual course indicated by Mr Stringer being taken. There was no reason at all why it should be done.

After consideration, the Bench held over the matter, ordering accused to be kept in custody. The Court then adjourned.