SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2144, 8 January 1881, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CHIMIN »L SITJ.INGSFriday, January 7. [Before hia Uonor Mr Justice Johnston.] The following- completes onr report of veator<lay in the trial of Michael Murphy for porj'ohn Murphy (brother of _ the prisoner) Cross-examined by Mr Stringer^ —Hodgson borrowed some money from mo prior to this transaction. I think it was about £7O. I think it was about .£3O for the horse and trap, and £2i by cheque. If Hodgson says that .£2O ■was paid for the trap ho dooa not speak truth. When I came oat of the office after writing tho agreement I saw Michael Murphy there. I gave evidence on a case for perjury against Hodgson [Evidence rend.J That is correct. Michael Murphy was present when tho argument took place with Watt os to tho delivery in Christchurch. I forgot to put in the place of delivery and date, though I intended to put in tho place of delivery at Christchurch. I wrote to bodgson accepting his price for delivery at Oxford, and tho reason X altered tho place of delivery was that ha was trying to sell the grain to some other persona. I cannot nay whether it was a quarter of an hour or five minutes after Hodgson had signed that X put in the words “at Christchurch.” It was when I was reading it to Hodgson after he had signed it that I discovered tho place of delivery was not put in, and I put it in and an argument ensued. Hodgson did not, before tho writing of the agreement, agree to the delivery of the grain at Christchurch, and I did not ask him to do so. Directly after I had read it to Hodgson I found out the place of delivery was omitted. The papo r now produced [a rough draft of agreement] is in my handwriting. I cannot say whether I gave Hodgson a copy of it. Watt was standing 1 near the door of tho office, which id only two or three feet from the street door. I did not sea Michael Murphy till after the agreement was signed. I did not see Michael Murphy while tho agreement was being written, j Mr Stringer rend tho evidence of the witness in the Court below. ] Michael Murphy came up while the discussion was going on with regard to the delivery of the grain. I cannot swear that the door of the office was open. [Mr Stringer quoted from the evidence given by witness in tho Court below, whore bo said the door of the office was wide open.] Iremombar Hodgson suing mo for the price of the grain and making allowance for the set-off. I gave evidence and called Watt ns well. The agreement was produced. Mr Mellish asked me how it was that tho alteration ho called my attention to occurred. I cannot say whether I gavo tho same explanation in the civil cases as to the alteration as to-day. I told Mr Mellish that I had made the alteration after Hodgson had signed. I cannot swear that I did not pay that my reason for changing the place of delivery was that Hodgson told me that the whole of tho grain was not equivalent to sample, and that therefore he would deliver tho grain at Christchurch for tho same price. I remember Mr Mellish giving evidence on my trial at last October. I don’t remember him saying that I gave this explanation. Ido not remember your asking me to account for the difference between tho letters and agreement. I don't think I did say that I could not account for it- The plaint produced is that on which I sued Hodgson. The wheat there is put at 2s 6d per bushel instead of 3s, which was agreed to by Hodgson. I gave him credit on tho plaint for this. The carriage of the grain was paid by mo. I paid 4s 4d for empty sacks. The account produced was sent by me to Hodgson. I suppose the item 4s 4d is the charge for tho empty sacks. The carriage of tho full ones does not appear. I cannot account for it not being there except that the cost was deducted from tho payment for the grain. Hodgson disputed the payment of the carriage of tho grain to Christchurch. The case between myself and Hodgson was before the Court four or five times, and neither my brother nor Watt gave evidence as to the conversation with respect to the change of the place of delivery. On first case Watt gave evidence, but not about this conversation. I never called Watt or Michael Murphy on all the five or six oases to prove the conversation in the store. After the occasion when you said tho agreement looked like forgery or perjury I did not call Watt or Mich tel Murphy to prove this conversation. Eo-examinod by Mr Harpsr—l_waa not represented by counsel on all tho occasions. I laid an information against Hodgson for perjury, and an information was also laid against mo for forgery. No one gave evidence against me on the forgery case bat Hodgson and his wife. Mr Stringer acted in all the civil cases. He called me a liar, and said that liars should have good memories. Ho also used other language for which ho was stopped by Mr Mellish. The account produced, as made up by Mr McConnel, was given to mo by Hodgson before any of those suits in the Civil Court. Hodgson was present in the Court when the agreement was read first. Ido not remember him raising the defence that he never intended to pay the cost of carriage. I don’t think Hodgson saw the agreement till the day of the trial in the Resident Magistrate’s Court. He might have seen it before. Mr Mellish pointed out the alteration. I don’t think Mrs Hodgson gavo evidence on the trial of the information for forgery against me in the Resident Magistrate’s Court. George McMinn deposed that in the month of April he was acting os bailiff for John Murphy, and went to Hodgson’s place. He banded Hodgson a document demanding £75 on account ■of John Murphy. He returned it to witness, Baying that ho did not owe Murphy £75. Witness said if Hodgson did not pay he must remain in possession. Witness wept into possession, and Hodgson and his wife went to Christchurch. On their return they brought a letter from John Murphy, in consequence of which he went to Sheffield. Hodgson told witness that he had no money to pay his expenses. Murphy had him in his power, so that he had to deliver tho corn in Christchurch. When witness went up there first Hodgson said Oxford was the best place to deliver grain, as the Waimakariri Gorge was too heavy to allow of his drays delivering the grain at Sheffield. Hodgson, when witness tendered the document, said that ho would either shoot Mnrphy or be the death of him before he paid him. Witness had not been in Mnrphy’s employ before this nor since, except as a groom.

Cross-examined by Mr Stringer—Witness did not owe Murphy any money, nor borrowed any. Ho lived in a house belonging to Michael Murphy, and paid him rent for it. _ Ho did not give the evidence he now had in the Conrt below, but had done so in the case of forgery against John Mnrphy in the Supreme Court. Nicholas Columbus deposed that he knew the prisoner, and also the store of John Murphy, in Cashel street. He had an appointment with Michaol Mnrphy on April 3rd. He drove to John Murphy’s store, and there saw a man named Watt. Michael Murphy appointed to meet him at his brother’s store at eleven o’clock. Witness passed Watt, who was standing at the door. When witness came out of the store he saw Michael Mnrphy coming up the street, near the Zetland Arms Hotel. The prisoner and himself had a conversation lasting about five minutes ; after which Michael Mnrphy wont to his brjther’s store. When witness came back a short time afterwards Watt and Michael Mnrphy were standing at the door. Ho saw Hodgson in John Murphy’s store, but he did not see a woman there. A female was standing near Smith’s corner, but bo did not see who it was. Cross-examined by Mr Stringer: Witness was married to Michael Murphy’s sister, and owed him some money. Michael Mnrphy had summoned witness, and put the bailiffs in the house. His wife borrowed money from Michael Mnrphy to defend himself in a charge of breaking into a house, which case was dismissed. Re-examined by Mr Harper : There was no case nt all against him, and it broke down, as tho house was only a whare. Thomas Murphy deposed that he wos prisoner’s brother. He remembered tho 3rd of April ns the Saturday before his brother’s trial for obtaining money under falsa pretences. Be saw prisoner in John Mnrphy’s store. Witness was standing at Turner’s corner with Mrs Mnrphy. Witness saw Watt and Columbus near tho stor - of John Murphy about 11 a.m. Witness did not ace Hodgson there. Mr Harper then addressed the jury for the prisoner. Mr Stringer having replied on the part of tho prosecution, His Honor summed np, commenting on tho ■evidence and reading over to the jury the testimony of Hodgson and the other witnesses in tho case.

The jury at 5.30 p.m. retired to consider their verdict. At 6.20 they returned into Court with a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor —Mr Stringer, do yon propose to take the case against Watt ? Mr Stringer—Yes, yonr Honor. His Honor—Then wo must sit to-morrow.

Mr Stringer—l understand, jour Honor, that Watt will not plead “Not Uuilty ” under the circumstances. , , , „ His Honoi—Well, then, wo had bettor dispose of the case to night. James Watt was then pnt into the box, and indicted for having committed perjury at the October Sittings of the Supreme Court, during the trial of one John Murphy. The prisoner pleaded guilty. Mr Stringer said that he desired to pnt before Hia Honor the difference which existed between the two prisoners. Watt was a man in poor circumstances, and he, as representing the Public Prosecutor, would ask His Honor to consider whether ho had not in some measure been controlled by Michael Murphy ? Mr Harper, on the part of the prisoners, called Hia Honor’s attention to the fact that they had bean in prison for some time. The prisoner Watt desired to call a witness as to character. , Hia Honor said that would not avail. Ho had pleaded gnilty to a very serious offence, and evidence as to character could hardly bo taken

under tho circumstances. Had Mr Stringer anything to urge to the Court with reference to Michael Mnrphy ? Mr Stringer replied in tho negative. His Honor said that the fact was this, that under Geo. 111. tho sentence was seven years’ transportation, which under the Secondary Punishments Act meant four years’ penal servitude. His Honor pas«ed sentence on Murphy, remarking upon the heinous nature of the crime of which he had been guilty. Tho motive in the case w-is money, the prisoner backing up the defence of his brother by what he characterised at the time as a bad case of conspiracy. But whilst this was so, bo would not allow anything he might have read in the newspapers to weigh with him in the discharge of justice Nothing would weigh with him in the sentence ho should pass, except the evidence ho had that day heard. Ho should sentence the prisoner to a punishment as if he had never scon him giving evidence in the witness box as be had aeon him, or standing in the dock as he had seen him. According to the law he found that tho sentence was four years’ penal servitude, but as this was not one of the worst cases of perjury that could come before him. he therefore would pass upon him a very light sentence, such as, while it would vindicate the law, would yet be but a light sentence for the despicable crime of which ho had been found guilty. There was no doubt that ho had been concerned in a case of conspiracy which had been productive of the most baneful effects to society, and that he was a most dangerous man. The sentence of the * onrt was that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for two years. The prisoner Watt was then sentenced to sis months’ imprisonment with hard labor. His Honor remarking that ho had no doubt bean led away by tho prisoner Murphy. At the same time the Court must mark its sense of the offence, though passing but a light sonMr' Stringer applied for the expenses of the prosecution to he paid by the prisoner. Mr Harper did not object to the expenses of the witnesses, but should object to counsel’s fees being paid. After some argument, His Honor said ho would let the matter stand over till Monday. TRUK BILLS. The Grand Jury during tha day returned into Conrt with true bills in the cases of Regina v Watt and Regina v M. Mnrphy. DISCHARGE OF GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury, who made no presentment, were discharged with tho thanks of the Queen and colony. , , The Court adjourned at 6,45 to Monday next at 10 a.m.