RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume XI, Issue 916, 4 July 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, Jdly 3. (Before R. Reid and W. H. Harrison, Esqrs., J.P.) PERJUKY. I.ouis Davis waa charged on the information of William F. Strike with committing wilfnl and corrupt perjury in the testimony he gave upon oath before W. H. Re veil, R.M., upon the hearing of the case [Louis Davis v. W. F. Strike, on the 27th of June. Messrs Perkins and Guinness appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Newton for the defence. Harry Kenrick, clerk of the Resident Magistrate's Court, Greymouth, produced the papers in the case Davis v. Strike, heard on the 22nd June. There were two informations, one for the 16th for abusive, insulting, and threatening language, the other on the 18th asking for sureties of the peace. Mr Davis gave evidence in these cases. I believe the two cases were taken together as one by req\iest of the parties. I was not in Court when the cases were heard. Constable M'Kenna : I was acting as Court-orderly on the 22nd June, and Davis v."StrilieT Davis gave evidence in both cases. The cases were heard to gether. I swore Davis on the Bible, and administered the oath in the usual form. He sa ; d the oath was binding on his conscience. Cross-examined : I know he was sworn on the Bible, because 1 make a habit every morning I am Court- orderly of looking at the Bible the first thing. I remember Davis offering an explanation in reply to a question by Mr Guinness, and being stopped by the Bench. Mr F. Strike : On Friday, the 22nd of June, I was in this Court charged upon two informations at the instance of Louis Davis. I think they were heard together by consent. The abusive language I was charged with using was made in connection with certain mining transactions in gold-mining leases, in which I had accused the defendant with robbing me. I did this on several occasions. I heard the evidence defendant gave in the cases heard on the 22nd June. I did not admit the whole of the abusive language I was charged with using. Davis admitted having received a message from me through Mr Lahman, that if he would stand up before me for five minutes that I would give him £5, and he also atatec that I afterwards said in the Victoria Hotel, "are you going to take the £b ;" or, " if you come outside for ten minutes I will give you £10." He was asked at the hearing of the charge against me if he ever made a statement at the Albion Hotel to the defendant (meaning me) and other Greymouth shareholders that he had put our names in Anderson's prospecting claim, and he replied, " I swear I never did." He was questioned as to whether he had not received some money from the Court at Cobden in connection with some mining leases I was interested in, and said he had' received some £7 odd shillings. He was asked if I was not interested in several leases, and he said I was only in one. I remember at the trial Mr Newton asking Mr Davis to make a statement regarding the. prospecting claim, but he said nothing regarding it, merely went on giving evidence on another matter. I remember the meeting at the Albion referred to by Davis. I think it took place on October 21. There were present Messrs Levy, Tonks, Lahman, King, myself, and Davis, when Davis said that he had applied for a pro* specting claim, and also for another claim called No 1 north. He said he had put on eight men at £4. a-week each, and that £64 wages would soon be due to them, and that his expenses in going to Westport and applyingforthe claim amounted to £50 (but he did not receive the full amount) and wages for Anderson for prospecting, amounting in all to L 124. He was asked—" What security we should have if we paid the money," when he stated that to secure the Greymouth shareholders, he had put the whole of their names in the prospecting claim, and the diggers' names in No. 1 north — meaning Anderson and party. He told me on several occasions previous to the meeting th#t he had put my name in the prospecting claim. He afterwards showed me a list of the names that were in the prospecting claim written in his pocket-book, and my name was among them, or the name of any Greymouth shareholder. I was interested in three leases in the Murray Creek district. Davis was aware of it. These leases were all lost through the negligenpo of Davis. Mr Lahman came to me with a message on the same day the abusive lan» guage was made use of regarding the Murray Creek reefs, and in consequence

of it 1 made it my business to sac Davis, and I met him at the Victoria Hotel. Cross-examined : I made use of very bad language in the hotel at that time. It was not filthy. lam bearing the expense of this prosecution. There is no understanding that any other person is to bear a sbare of the expense. I have no animus against defendant except in mining matters. I have a desire to secure a conviction in this case as a compensation for the iujnry I received, because 1 consider the oath he swore in the case increased the amount of the fine, and made the case look blacker against me. I refer to the evidence he gave about the prospecting claim, and what took place at the Albion Hotel. Ido not remember after the last case, saying outside the Court-house that I would take LIOO for the evidence Davis had given, and Mr Hunt saying he would take L 25 as his share of it. I don't remember hearing such a statement made. I know Annie Burke. I never said to her I would drive or hunt the defendant out of the place. I would have prevented him going had he tried. Before the last case was heard we intended to take proceedings against Davis for obtaining money by false pretences. I had no idea what answer Davis would make to Mr Guinness's questions regarding what transpired at the Albion ; I presumed he would have spoken the truth. It was some months after the meeting that I heard Davis deny he had ever said he had put our names in the prospecting claim ; that was while on our way to the Court at the Inangahua. I never heard him say so at a meeting in the interval, and that any persons who said he made the statement were liars. To the best of my belief he never made such a statement in my hearing. I did not hear the Magistrate stop j Da /is when he voluntered a statement regarding: these leases at the last trial. The Greymouth shareholders were the proprietors of the claim ; at least they paid the men who prospected for the reef. There was some talk of amalgamating the two claims, at a meeting held prior to the meeting at which Davis said our names were in the prospecting claim. What he said was not that the Greymouth shareholders were in the prospecting claim the same as the diggers were in No 1 north. Since my case, I have talked the matter over casually with some of the other shareholders, but there is no arrangement as to any evidence we are to give to-day. Davis held two twelfth shares in the prospecting claim. He did not act as our agent, he worked against us all through. He has told me the diggers were willing to give us interests in the prospecting claim if we had not lost No. 1 north. We were advised to appeal against Dr Giles's decision, but did not. James Payne remembered the hearing of the case Davis v. Strike. On that occasion Davis stated that he had no'; told the Greymouth shareholders at the meeting at the Albion Hotel that he had applied for the prospecting claim in their names. R. J. Tonks stated that at the meeting of shareholders held in the Albion Hotel after Davis came back from Westport, Davis applied for a settlement of accounts, which inolniioil V>i" -• — -r *~ " "1 ""' port and the wages of men at the reef. A portion of the amount was paid, and Davis said that in order to insure the interests of the Greymouth shareholders he had put them in the prospecting claim. He also said that Anderson and other miners were put into No 1 north. There were present on that occasion Messrs G. King, E. Lapham, M. Levy, W. F. Strike, W. F. Lahman, and witness. Davis hever said anything about an amalgamation of the prospecting claim and No 1 north, or that the Greymouth shareholders had an interest in both. Davis had always told witness since that he considered the Greymouth shareholders were entitled to one-twelfth share each in the prospecting claim, and that was how he (witness) "had been sucked in." Witness afterwards ascertained that his name was not on the prospecting claim, and Davis denied that he had ever said he had put the Greymouth shareholders names on. Morris Levy was one of the persons who paid for prospecting Murray Creek. Davis was agent for the miners. Davis went to Westport in connection with the claim. Witness met him afterwards at a meeting on the 21st October at the Albion Hotel. Davis told the meeting that he wanted some money to pay men on the claim, and said what he had done at Westport, Davis said he had applied for a prospecting claim in the names of the Greymouth shareholders. Something was said about amalgamating with No 1 north, but he said distinctly that he had put the Greymouth shareholders in the prospecting claim, and it was on that statement that the money he asked for was paid. Afterwards in Court, at the trial of the case at Reefton, Davis said he had not applied for the prospecting claim in the Greymouth shareholders' names. Davis has afterwards stated that he considered the Greymouth shareholders had an interest in the prospecting claim. F. W. Lahman corroborated the previous witness. At this stage the Bench intimated that they could not see the utility of carrying the case any further. Supposing all the evidence the prosecution had brought to be admitted by the other side, the Court could not see linw it went to substantiate the charge of perjury. The evidence given by Davis ( .m the heanuy of the case against Strike as to what took place at a meeting at the Albion Hotel several months previously might have been incorrect, but if it was not material to the case then under trial it would not constitute perjury within the meaning of the law. The Bench were fully bound to have regard to the question of materiality, and to those considerations which would )e presented to a jury if the case went for trial. They did not think that the statements of Davis with regard to the meeting had anything to do with the case during the hearing of which they were made. There was an absence of motive so far as that case was concerned, and for these reasons they felt it necessary to stop the case. i Mr Perkins pressed that he might be ] allowed to tender the evidence of Mr '' Guinness as to what Davis really had said c on the occasion of giving evidence in this J case against Strike, in order to complete the depositions in the eyent of ulterior c proceedings, and after some contention on 1 the part of Mr Newton, ' * Mr Guinness stated that Davis had dis- v tinctly denied having told the Greymouth * shareholders that he had put their names ? on the prospecting claim. i: The case was then dismissed, ' n