Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Resident Magistrate's Court.

SATURDAY, MAY 28, 1870. [Before J. Anderson, Esq., J.P.; H. S. Tiffen, Esq., J.P.; E. Catciipool, Esq., J.P.; and Captaia W. R. Russell, J.P.] John Buchanan was charged, on the information of James Watt, with having in the Supreme Court on the 12th met., committed wilful and corrupt perjury, in having sworn that a certain charge made by the firm of Watt Brothers could not apply to his wool, and in hiving said, "I know nothing about the eight bales." Mr Carlyon appeared in support of the information, and Mr Buchanan conducted his own case. In accordance with an application by Mr Carlyon, Mr Buchanan was accommodated with a seat at the table.

Mr Carlyon in opening the case, said it was much against his own inclination that he appeared in support ot the present information ; but, unpleasant as was the position in which he found himself placed, he could not help discharging his professional duty. The charge was, that at a certain trial in the Supremo Court Mr Buchanan had wilfully sworn to w hat'was not true. A charge of perjury was always a very difficult one to prove ; but in this Court the only thing necessary was to show that there was aprimdfaaie case — sufficient to warrant its being sent to another Court to be further dealt with. The alleged perjury would have the effect of giving an advantage to the defendant in his case; a nd though . this advantage was not a very great one, the Court had not to consider the amount; and they would have no alternative hut to commit him if they thought he had, without any explanation, sworn to what turned out to bo false. In the case to which ho referred Mr Buchanan, who was one of tti<* defen dants, was examined as a witness, and had his attention repeatedly drawn to a certain item in Mr Watt's account, concerning the carnage of wool. The defendants had given a bill of sale of all cheir wool to Watt Brothers: and correspondence had passed between the parties, in which Mr Buchanan had stated that he had sent certain bales down, and had seven or eight remaining. This was in January, and about Marcii Mr W att wrote to Mr Buchanan for the remainder of the bales. Mr Watt, not receiving the bales., exercised his power by sending for them and seizing them. The affair resulted in an action in the Supreme Court, in which the question of these bales was of material importance. When the defendant was ask»d why he had not sent the remaining bales he said he knew nothing about them. The apparent motive was this —the defendant was charged with carriage for thesu' bales, which sum he saved by this statement. If any mistake was made, it was the business of Mr Buchanan or his counsel to correct it. Messrs Watt thus gave credit to defendant for the wool, and paid the carriage as well. Mr Watt had a motive in bringing this action. He wished to relieve himself from the gorioua imputation of having made an unjust and unwarrantable charge. James Watt deposed : I am a partner in the firm of Watt Brothers, and have been doing business with Messrs Buchanan & Weston for about three years. They were in my debt in March last. I held two securities—a mortgage on the stock and a lien on the wool. [Documents produced and admitted]. I got 34 bales in Dec-mber and January. I had some communication with Buchanan on the subject of the wool, but did not write to him. Towards the end of January I got a letter from Buchanan informing me that there were three or four bales still remaining on the station. [Letter produced and admitted]. I did nothing particular at the time, but in March I sent two parties up to seize the sheep and wool. They got 7 hales of wool and 1 bale sheepskins. Those were seized by the bailiff, and brought down by Dillon's dray. I paid £7 16s for the carriage, which I charged to Buchanan, crediting him with the eight bales. There was a balance owing to me. I served defendant with a writ, which resulted in a trial in the Supreme Court on the 12th May. Mr Wilson was then my counsel. Mr Buchanan was called as a witness in the case, and I heard his evidence. Mr Wilson asked defendant if any further bales were brought down after the 34 He answered, "I know nothing of the eight bales of wool." It wajS pointed out that I had paid the carriage, when he isaid that could not apply to his wool. Seven of the eight bales bore the same brand as the previous 34. The Judge pointed out that credit was given for the

eight bales in the account, but the defendant did not object to take the credit. Mr Carlyon : Did he not attempt to explain it in any way ? Witness (after a pause) : He did not explain it in any way. Mr Buchanan then cross«examined the witness as follows : You say you have had dealings with us about three years ? Witness : I repeat that statement. I have not taken the trouble to look at my books, but it is about that time. Mr Buchanan : Do you recognise this account ? It is made up showing transac tions between us in 1865. Is not that nearer six 3 ears ? Witness : I suppose it is evident. Mr Buchanan : Double the number of years. And you call yourself a truthful witness ? Mr Carlyon appealed to the Court against this style of cross-examiLation. Mr Buchanan; So much for the introductory portion. You say that in March last you sent a bailiff to seize certain property. Did you give him a written authority ? Witness: Yes. Mr Buchanan. What was the nature of that authority ? Witness: To take possession of the sheep, I afterwards gave another authority, to take both wool and sheep. The paper you produce is the first order. I gave another because you got possession of that one and refused to give it back.

Mr Buchanan : In this there i 3 no mention of wool ; and therefore, so far as I knew, he had authority to seize the sheep alone ?

Witness: I gave auother order including both. Mr Buchanan : Do you know whether he delivered that order or not? Witness : I do not. Mr Buchanan : Are you aware how he get the wool ? Witness: lam not. Mr Buchanan : Can you swear that 1 had any knowledge of the wool being taken away ? Mr Carlyon again objected. Of coursej the witness could not swear to anything of the kind, not having been present. Mr Buchanan : You were in Court during the trial. Do you remember, at the conclusion, my saying "I will explain" ? Witiess: Yes.

Mr Buchanan : The question was about the carriage of the eight bales of wool ? Witness : I believe so. Mr Buchanan : Was any explanation asked for by your counsel ? Witness : He tried to get to the bottom of the matter, and could not.

Mr Buchanan ; He did not press the inquiry after that remark ? Witness : I think not.

Mr Buchanan : Therefore he did not take advantage of the proffered explana tion ?

Witness: I heard no further explana tion.

Mr Buchanan: Did he seek to elicit any explanation ? Wit Jess : He stopped you by saying something about a speech. Mrßucham.n: Did he take advantage of my proffered explanation ? Witness: He stopped you. There was no explanation given. Mr Buchanan : Say yes or no. Witness: I do not consider yes or no would answer the question. Mr Buchanan : I appeal to the Bench. I have put a direct question and s:ek a direct answer.

The Bench : Of course the direct and natural answer is that he did not.

Mr Bnchanan : Who stopped meP Witness : When you said " I will ex plain," Mr Wilson said, " Now we are going to have a speech." You said that was more than he could make, and then the stopped, you.

Mr Buchanan: Did the examination proceed, or did it come to a stop ? Witness; It came to a stop. Mr Buchanan: Then the proffered explanation was not given? Witness : Certainly not. Mr Buchanan: In consequence of my being stopped ? Witness: As fir as I remember there was no further examination. I suppose no explanation was wanted; the Judge did not seem to want any. Mr Buchanan: You think your counsel, then, did not want the speech. Who was your bailiff? , Witness: Leonard Eoper. Mr Buchanan : What were his instructions ? Witness: I gave him written authority to take the sheep and wool Mr Buchanan : What verbal instructions dkl you give him ? Witness: I told him to use no unneces sary violence. I gave him no other verba' instructions. Mr Buchanan: D.d you not have a con versation with Bo per in Wilson's office before he left ? Witness : I fancy Roper was present. Mr Buchanan : Did he not then receive any verbal instructions about the wool ? Witness: I don't recollect giving hia any verbal instructions. I may have mentioned the wool, but it was not in his written instructions, I think 1 told him to get the wool. I afterwards took th< precaution to. put the wool in the written authority —when you had got the first authority, which you refused to give back. Mr Buchanan : Why did you make this variation ? Witness : I thought it as well. Mr Buchanan : Did you contemplate seizing the wool on tho first occasion ? ! Witness: I think I told him verbally to get it. There was no reference to it in the

Mr Buchanan : You told the bailiff to use no unnecessary violence. Will you give a definition of the term ? Mr Oarlyon : What has the violence of the bailiff to do with it ? The Bench considered the last question unnecessary. Mr Buchanan : I bow to the decision of the Court, Mr Carlyon then re exaraiiod the witness, and elicited the following:—Mr Buchanan's evidence was interrupted by a remark from counsel. Mr Buchanan remarked that Mr Wilson could not make a speech, and the Judge cautioned him not to use such language. As fir as the counsel was concerned that was all the inter* ruption. Mr Buchanan ; Was it a final closure of my evidence that ensued? Witness « It stopped at that stage. Mr Buchanan : How cam° you to swear that we had hid dealings far three years, when it was really six ? Witness: I spoke from memory. I said about three yearsMr Buchanan : Others may have defects of memory j do you admit that ? Witness: Yes. "* Mr Buchanan : Yet you have not Chris-SS tian charity to make any allowance on that account. —That will do. Thomas Lound, crier of the Supreme Court, was called to prove the administration of the oath, but that point being fully admitted by the defence, his evidence was not taken. Henry Holloway deposed that he was present in the Supreme Court during the case Watt v. Buchanan in the capacity of reporter. He produced his notes of Mr Buchanan's evidence j but as they were undecipherable to ordinary readers, he produced an extended copy, which he would swear wa3 a correct summary of the evidence. Mr Buchanan admitted the correctness of the notes, and proceeded to cross-examine the witness : On these notes you furnished a report of the case to the Herald, which appeared in that paper of the 13th inst. ? Witness: Yes. Mr Carlyon strongly objected to a newspaper being put in as evidence. Mr Buchanan : State the circumstances of the conclusion of the trial to the Court. Witness: Mr Buchanan was under cross* examination, and after he had used the words, "I will explain," Mr Wilson, turning to the Judge, said, " We shall have a speech now, your Honor." Mr Buchanan said, " That is more than you can make," or words to that effect. The Judge reprimanded Mr Buchanan for the remark, saying he would send him to prison if he made any more remarks in that tone. I afterwards heard the Judge tell Mr Buchanan not to argue with him ; this was in consequence of his trying to eay something more. Mr Buchanan : la fact, I was gagged? Witness (with some hesitation) : Well —perhaps you were, morally. At any rate you were stopped from saving anything more. Mr Buchanan ; Did the cross-examining counsel make any further attempt to elioit anything ? Witness: No. Re-examined by Mr Carlyon : I remenv. ber Mr Wilson making some remark concerning the evidence, to which the Judge in reply said, "You know your remedy, Mr Wilson." I do not remember whether this occurred while Mr Buchanan was in the witness box or not. Alfred Dillon deposed : I am a carrier, and reside at Patangata. I was employed in March last by Mr Roper to get some bales of wool from Elsthorpe station. Mr Buchanan was nos present when I got the wool. By Mr Buchanan: I have always carried the Elsthorpe wool since the first year, and have always been paid by you. I did not consider you responsible for the wool I took in March. I never sent you an account, and so far as I am aware you knew nothing about my taking it. I was not engaged by you, but took it on account of Watt Brothers. Leonard Roper deposed: I am a drover, and was employed in March last to seize and take possession of certain sheep and wool on Elsthorpe station. I seized eight bales of wool and a few fleeces, and put them in a bullock-dray. Mr Buchanan was not present when I loaded the dray, He saw the wool carried away, but made no remark. By Mr Buchanan: You were not present when the wool was taken from the shed. Some objection was made to tb.3 wool being taken. You were standing on the doorstep when it passed. Your sons threatened to shoot the bullocks, and chained the gates. I asked them to open the gates, and as they refused, I put the bullocks to the gates, and drew the staples. Of course I took the wool by force, part of which force consisted in pulling down the gates The authority you produce is r the one I showed you. It does not mention the wool. I never showed you my authority to take the wool. I took the wool beoause I had the -authority in my pocket, I told your sons I had it, but I did not produce it. Of course I procoeded|to take, the wool by violence. Mr B'ijchanan : Had you any verbal instructions on the first occasion ? Witness : I only acted acoording to authority, Mr Buchanan repeated the question. Witness : I don't remember anything of the kind —I saw Mr Watt in Wilsou's office before I left j but no conversation took place. I went to Elsthorpe as Watt's servant. If I had left the station with the sheep I should have been his drover. Previous to so leaving it I considered, myself his servant. I had no instructions, variance with what have been gften (n,

evidence. I understood I was to carry out all Mr Watt's instructions at "Klsthorpo as a servant. I had no instructions to take possession of the wool-shed oe sheep-yards. lie-examined by Mr Carlyon; Mr Buchanan saw the wool going away. He brought me to court oi the charge of breaking down his gates. The case was .dismissed. Mr Carlyon said his case was now closed, and proceeded to sum up the evidence. If the Court considered sufficient testimony had been brought to constitute a primd facie case, they had no alternative but to .commit the matter to a higher court. Mr Buchanan had admitted all the main facts sought to be proved against him, including the words used in court, and appeared to rest his defence on what he considered his legal right to detain the wool. This was evidenced by his minute inquiries as to whether proper instructions were given -to those persons who seized the property. Now, in fact, after this wool had been eecured to Watt Brothers, it was in their possession, and no more belonged to Buchanan than to the court. Watt's, having Mr Buchanan's letter admitting the possession of certain wool, acted in a perfectly legal manner in sending a servant to take possession of that wool; and the court, in deciding this case, must be cautious not to allow people who had given wool security .to suppose that they still retained control over it. Acting under this fallacious idea Mr Buchanan had summoned the drover who seized the wool. [Mr Buchanan : I feel called upon to correct this misrepresentation. I summoned the man to this court for maliciousdts r action of property.] A:l this about instructions had nothing to do with the case. Mr Watt had a perfect right to send for the wool ; and the only question was wnether Mr Buchanan m his evidence had spoken the truth or not. It was proved that credit had been given for the eight bales j and the advantage—a small one, no doubt —arising to the defen dant from misrepresenting the case, was that while he obtained credit for the eight baL'B, Watt failed to recover the cost of eariige. The only real plea in defence, then, was this, that the witness was intend ing to make somo further explanation, but, having been prevented from so doing, allowed the matter to rest as it was. It wa* the business of defendant's counsel to ask for this explanation, if it was required. Mr Wilson had got all he wanted, and did not get the explanation. To stop a witness's evidence in a court of justice was impossible. It did not matter whether those words were the final closure of the case or not. He considered he had laid before the Benchia 'prima facie case. Of course, if it went to a higher court, all these things would hive to be proved with greater particularity than now.

M:' Buchanan then, having been cauti > ed in the usual form, opened his c-ise, and, as he spoke slowly, in crier that his words might be recorded, we give a verbatim report of his remarks :—lt is not my intention in this case to take advantage of any technical objection which might be raised to this information. It is of too degrading a character for any one not bred and trained in the purlieus of Houndsditch to meet otherwise than by a full and free ■statement of facts. That the wool referred to in this ease was the property, under lien, of Watt & Co., I do not contest. All I contest" is my liability for its carriage under the circumstances of its seizure —a seizure admittedly made by violence, and with tie strong hand ; in fact, taken in a way in which legal process, carried out by leg 'illy appointed officers, is prohibited by law. It is said, and I admit I used these words, " I don't know anything about the eight bales of wool," but the real meaning is/that I don't know anything about the carriage of the wool. That carriage, we have evidence to show, was not engaged by myself, nor were any orders for its payment draw n by me on Watt & Co., as had always previously been usual. In proving, or endeavoring to prove the substance of an information of this nature, even if the strict literal truth were departed from—which in this case I maintain has not been —it will be necessary for the Bench to be satisfied that such departure was wilful and corrupt. Now, I submit to your Worships that no such evidence has been given. It is distinctly shown that whatever was not clear or understood I proffered to explain. This explanation, through no fault of mine, was not elicited, and, being so, I submit the accusation of wilful and corrupt perjury is a most etrained construction.

Mr Cuff (called by Mr Buchanan) deposed: I am a solicitor, and was engaged in the case "Watt v. Buchanan. I was present at the trial, and heard the evidence. I remember your evidence being brought to an abrupt close. Mr Wilson was examining vou about a specific item in the account—money paid to Diilon. You stated, as near as I can recollect, "I know nothing about that wool, but I will iexplain." The item referred to carriage only. Mr Wilson, eneeringly turning to the Judge, said, " We shall have a speech now, your Honor." You replied, " That is more than you can make." The Judge said, "If I hear anything more approaching that tone, Mr Buchanan, I shall commit you for contempt." After some further conversation between the Judge and yourself, his Honor Baid, "Don't argue with me; you are there to answer questions." T 7 3U replied, " Then I shall answer questions only." I believe Mr Wilson then said, "I have got what I want," and that no further questions were put. By Mr Carlyon: I do not say Mr Buchanan was altogether shut out from making his explanation, because he might have been re-examined. I should have considered it unwise of Mr Buchanan to

attempt further explanation after the Judge's remark. Knowing, as I did the full facts of the case, I quite understood the bearing of his remark, " I know nothing about the wool." "I will explain," were certainly not his last words in the witness-box.

By the Court: He couM not have made any further statement without being reexamined by his own counsel. John Fanner deposed : I am a corporal of police at Waipawa. I was at EUthorpe about the Bth March, and saw the wool taken away. You [Buchanan] were not present when the gate* were pulled down You were at your door when the drays passed. Roper told your son he bad an authority, but you had taken it and kept it. He did not produce any authority, nor show it.

The magistrates then retired ; and after rather a long absence, returned and gave their decision, which was read. We did not see a copy of this paper, but it was to the effect that though there was apparently an untruth in Mr Buchanan's testimony, the charge of perjury was not warranted, inasmuch as he had been debarred from giving a necessary explanation. Information dismissed.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HBT18700530.2.6

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 15, Issue 791, 30 May 1870, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
3,748

Resident Magistrate's Court. Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 15, Issue 791, 30 May 1870, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court. Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 15, Issue 791, 30 May 1870, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert