SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2143, 7 January 1881, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

SECOND EDITION

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. The following completes our report of yesterday : On tho Court resuming at four o’clock, His Honor stated that ao tho steamer had only just arrived at Lyttelton, another unavoidable delay must occur. He expressed sympathy with the Grand Jury under the peculiar circumstances, and said he would endeavor to meet their wishes. Mr Stringer said the mails would arrive in the Post Office by half-past four, but would not be sorted till about half-past five o’clock. His Honor asked the Grand Jury if they would wish to adjourn till ton o’clock next day. After consultation, the Jury agreed to attend at ten o’clock on Friday. Mr McOonnel made an application for a writ of habeas carpus or an order to procure tho attendance of John Murphy, in the perjury case. His Honor said he could not do so regularly, no bill having as yet been found, and he would not depait from tho ordinary mode of procedure in this case. But he assumed that there would bo no difficulty if tho gaoler were made to understand that the man must be brought there by the first train. Mr McOonnel said he was perfectly satisfied. The Court then adjourned till ten o’clock next day. Trio Day. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The Court re-opened et 10 a.m. PEBJDET. The Grand Jury re-assembled at this hour to consider bills against Michael Murphy and James Watt for perjury. His Honor briefly addressed the Grand Jury on the subject, and they then retired to consider the bill. At 10.30 the Grand Jury returned into Court with a true bill against Michael Murphy. On the application of Mr George Harper, Bis Honor made an order for the production of John Murphy, now in the custody of the Chief Gaoler, to give evidence. Mr George Harper appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded “ Not Guilty.’’ The main portion of the evidence was similar to that given in the Court below to a great extent. The witnesses called were Messrs Bloxam, T. Plankett (“ Lyttelton Times ”), G. B. Mart (Press), tho two latter as to the evidence given by prisoner in the case of Begin a v John Murphy. John Hodgson, the prosecutor in the former case, repeated the evidence given by him tben. This witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr Harp;r, but nothing material was elicited. The witness stated that he commenced the prosecution against Michael Morphy on his own account, and there was no statement that his expense s would be paid if he wont in for it. He had had no dealing with Michael Murphy. He had borrowed .£7O from John Murphy, for which ha had only got £25 by a cheque, and £2O bv a horse and trap, making altogether £45. The statement of account produced was prepared by Mr McConnell at therequestof witness. The account was taken to John Murphy ns witness conid not get a settlement. In the Resident Magistrate’s Court witness said that he had sold grain to other people, amongst others a man named Beaumont. The grain was inferior grain, not seed. This was after April 3rd. The grain was light grain, not filled. The grain he sold would not in any way he the same as sample sent to Murphy. He delivered all tho best of the grain to Murphy, and got the same price from the people he sold to as he did from Murphy. Witness delivered over eight hundred bushels of grain to Murphy. As regarded the wheat Murphy made his own estimate from the stacks, putting it down at three hundred bushels, but witness said he did not think it would go so far. Ho paid for the cartage of the grain from his farm to tho Oxford railway station. The grain was consigned to John Murphy. Ho bad been in the country since 1865, but had not been often in Christchurch. He hod been more in Christchurch since he had had dealings with Mcrphy than before. Be-ezamined hy Mr Stringer—Witness had the words “more or less” put in with regard to the wheat, because ho thought Murphy had overestimated the produce. He went to Mr McConnell to get the account made out because Murphy was not satisfied with the account made up by Hr Thomas. Mrs Hodgson was examined, and gave evidence

evidence similar to that on a former occasion, and was cross-examined at some length by Mr Harper. G. L. Mellish deposed as to the evidence given by the prisoner in a civil case heard by him in the Besident Magistrate’s Court between John Murphy and Hodgson. An agreement was produced as between John Murphy and Hodgson. There was an apparent alteration, which he saw now, and to which he had called attention.

This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Harper briefly addressed the jury as to the evidence he was going to lead for the defence, and also quoted from “ Best’s Principle of Evidence ” to show that the words used by the accused should be most strictly proved, as also their falsity, by two witnesses. The only evidence was that of the two reporters as to the words used by the prisoner before the Court, and that of Hodgson and his wife as to the falsity of the evidence thus given. They intended to prove that the evidence given by Michael Murphy was absolutely correct. Ho then called the following evidence. John Murphy: I am brother to the prisoner, Michael Murphy. I had a shop in Cashel street, Christchurch, and carried on business as a corn dealer. I did not live on the premises. There was one room in which there was a small clTioo. I remember 3rd April, and George Hodgson coming to my store on that day. I mot him in my store. Ho came to know why I had put a bailiff on his premises, and I told him that I had done so because he had been trying to sell his grain to another man. I was told this by the party he wanted to sell it to. He told me ho was not trying to sell it to anybody, that ho would sell it to me. I said if he would sell it to me I would remove the bailiff. We had an agreement out. The agreement produced was written by me. Mrs Hodgson was not present when it was drawn out. I did not see her in the store from first to last. Hodgson saw the agreement, and signed it. At the time ha signed it the words “at Christchurch ’’ and the date were not put in at the time he signed it, but about a quarter or Xmlf-an-honr alter. I told Hodgson that the grain must be delivered at Oxford, but I told him he must deliver it at Christchurch. I told him I would not take the bailiff away without he agreed to deliver the grain at Christchurch at the price. I gave him a note to withdraw the bailiff. I got the agreement hocaubo be was trying to sell the grain to some one else. It was about IX a.m. when Hodgson came in. Mrs Hodgson was not there at tho time. I saw the prisoner, Michael Murphy, at my storj on that day, about eleven o’clock. He was in my shop more than once that day. When 1 first saw him he was standing in tho dor of my shop. Hodgson was jnst going away when I first saw my brother. My brother came right into tho shop after Hodgson had left. I had a lien over Hodgson’s crops and agricultural implements. I complained of Hodgson’s telling hay, and wrote him about it. I fouud him selling it as I was at Oxford. A man named Nicholas Columbus was in my store on April 3rd, shortly after Hodgson left. It was in the forenoon some time. I remember seeing Tom Murphy there too. I saw James Watt in the store before Hodgson came. lam sure I had no boy in my employ at this time. Watt did not leave before Hodgson. [Loft eitting.j