RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 1044, 4 February 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, February 3. [Before J; Mackay, Esq., R.M.] STRAY GOATS. John Monohatt was charged with allowing four goats to wander about Seddon street, on the 28th day of January last, contrary to the bye-laws of the borough. Defendant pleaded ,'nilt.y, and was fined Is and 5s costs of Court. ALLEGED PERJURY. Joseph Bei'egsas Hun, of Kuraara, was charged that, on the 20th day of January, 1880, at Kuniara, he did falsely, wickedly, and corruptly, commit wilful and corrupt perjury in the testimony which he gave upon oath as a witness in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Kumara, at the trial of a certain cause between the Mayor, Councillors, and burgesses of the Borough of Kumara and the said Joseph Beregsas Hun, being an indictable offence. Mir Perkins appeared dn behalf of the prosecution and Mr Guineas defended the accused. William Alfred Barton, sworn, deposed : I am clerk to the Resident Magistrate's Court Kumara, in the district of Hokitika. I produce my appointment, as also the Gazette notice containing it of the sth of August, 1879. I produce the plaint and the summons in the case of the Mayor and Borough Council of Kumara against Joseph Berregsas Hun, heard on the 7th of January, 1880, in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Kumara, for recovery of rates. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, ss, and costs amounting to £1 18s. On this a judgment summons was applied for and issued. It came on for hearing on the 20th of January, 1880. The prisoner appeared on that date in answer to the summons. By Mr Guinness: The summons was made returnable earlier than provided by the rules because Mr Wylde, the Town Clerk, stated that the prisoner was about to move out of the district. On those grounds only I grauted the summons, j was not present all the time in Court during the hearing of the case. John Nash, sworn, deposed : I am a constable of Police, stationed at Kumara. I remember the 20th of January last, I was Court orderly on that day. I remember the case of the Mayor and Borough Council v. Hun, a judgment summons being called on for hearing before J. Mackay, Esq., the Resident Magistrate. The accused appeared. I administered the oath in the presence of the Resident Magistrate. The oath I administered was as follows. " The evidence you shall give in this case before the Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help your God." The oath was administered on the bible produced, containing the Gospels; The accused took the bible in his hand; and kissed it after repeating the oath in the usual way. James Wylde, sworn, deposed :' I am Town Clerk of the Borough of; Kumara. The Borough is incorporated under the Municipal Corporation Actj 1876. I attended in my capacity as Town Clerk to conduct a case against accused on the 20th of January at the Resident Magistrate's Court, Kumara. The ease was the hearing of a judgment summons against the accused, which I had applied for and it had been issued. The accused appeared on the date in question, in answer to the summons. He Was 6worn in the usual way, aud after that I examined him as to what property he had; After he said he had no property, I asked him where his gold watch and chain wag. He said "I never had a gold watch and chain " I said, " well, where is your watch and chain? never mind whether' it is gold or not. He saidj "I have got no watch." I said " Where is the watch and chain you were wearing last court day ]" He said, " Oh ! you mean this thing : this is not a watch at all, it is only an old case," taking the case ■ [produced] ftom his trousers pocket. I identify the case produced, as I had it in my possession in Court for some time. J said, " Is that the watch and chain you had the last Court day.'' He said, " yes ; I never had any other." The chain now produced is the same pattern and same appearance as the .one produced on that occasion. I then said, •' Do you swear you have no property H all V He replied," yes except souse shares in the Public Hall Company, which you know all about." I had frequently seen the accused with a watch and chain. I know the watch had a face aud works and was not u case only. By Mr Guiness : I have repeatedly seen the, accused with a watch and chain. I had often seen him looking

*' ' r "''l ' I ' 1 rl''| , i"nir'lf liTlJ&o -^^ at the time. Since he was on the 7th of January last JFor rates. I had Seen him with a watch and chain in his possession. I saw hitii, outside the Court House on the 7th of January looking at his watch ; lie was looking at the time, rl would not say that it was a single 1 or double case watch. I would not swear it was Silver or gold. I cannot say that the wat>:h case, produced on the 20th was the same I saw on the 7th of January. I could not say what the 1 time was by the accused's watch on the* Tth Jamiary, 1880, although I saw the face; I do nob know what time of tke day it was, except that if was afVeV the" Court rose. He was wearing an apparently gold dhain on the 7th. I most distinctly recognise the case produced as the one I saw in Court on the 20th; 1 know it by a peculiar mark. I next saw the watcli case oh the 21st in Ml* Weisiier'a shop, Kumara. I did not take possession of the watch on the occasion, I did not to the best of my belief, take the watch in my hand. I did not look for any mark of identification on that occasion. I saw Mr Weisner next hand it to the Sergeant of police; I cannot say the day. It was after the information was laid; I went down with Mr Weisner aiid the Sergeant Id the Zigzag. Sergeant Emerson has had the watch in his possession since that date. The facts I alleged by which the accused committed perjury were id swearing he had no .property and that the watch he had produced was the one he had. on in the Court when he appeared on a previous odea* sion, and that he had no other. 1 specifically questioned him about a giui and watch before I asked hini about his property generally. lie. produced a watch and chain which were valueless. lam certain I can speak to the 1 evidence given by the accused relative to the watch and chain. Mr Weisner produced only the one case j I saw hint three times, but he showed mend other. I cannot swear that the case he shewed nle iu his shop was the-.same one he handed to Sergeant Emerson in my presence. I subsequently found out that the accused had another chain; I received instructions verbally front the' members of the Borough Council td lay this information. "When I laid the' information, I informed the police that he was leaving the district; I never' asked for a warrant to be issued against accused unless it was included in the .. information. In the course of a con. ' versation within a few hours after layi . ing the information,-1 said that I thought that the accused should be apprehended. There is no ill feeling be- | tweeti the Borough Council and acj cused. I recollect the aocused putting an execution into the' Borough Chatrtbers to satisfy the amount of a case iri Court. On the 20th the accused handed me the watch and chain to* gether. lam positive he swore" at the hearing of the judgment summons that - they were the same watch and chain be had on the previous occasiom J plied for a judgment sunitriotis against the accused on the iGth day of* January, &nd stated he was aboil t to leave the district. I was informed that lie was going to leave the district by Various persons amongst whom was Mr 1 Skiltonj ■•..■■■'•"■ To Mr Perkins : The' information •was laid two days after the judgment summons was heard. It was after Sergeant Enirflerson'a return from. Grey-* mouth that Mr Weianei 4 gave him the watch. By the Magistrates I saw the ac* cused with a watch outside the Court; Although I saw the face of the" watch, I could not aay whether it was gold or silver. I was told he had a gold watch, and that was the reason I asked in Court where his gold watch Was. S* S. Pollock, sworn, deposed i I am a storekeeper, residing in ]£urilar4< I was present in the Resident Magistrate's Court on the 20th of January, during the hearing of a judgment summoos against the accused. I heard the accused examined on oath by Mr Wylde. T heard Mr Wylde ask the accused where was his gold; Watch arid chain. He replied, "I have none." Mr Wylde then said, •' Where is the watcli aud chain you hadl never mind wether it is gold or not." ;He replied " I have ho Watch." Mr Wylde then said, "What have you done with the watdh and chain you had here, last Court day?" He replied, " I suppose you mean this thing"—(putting his hand into his pocket, and pulling out a. is only a dummy." He repeated after, "It is only a case of a watch." Mr Wylde then said, "Ir ■ that the. one you .always wore V 1 Ho replied, " Yes.'* Mr Wylde said, " You are on your oath." Hesaid, " I know I am; that is the only watch I ever wear—or wore." I cannot say whether ho said wear or wore. He said, "That is the only watch I ever had." I saw the watch and chain. I cannot

jr- - - - Identify the watch produced, but I do the chain. By Mr Guinness : I am a member of the Borough Couucil. I was not 'one of the Councillors who gave instructions relative to the iuformatioh being laid against the accused. I took ho notes of the evidence on the occasion. Mr Wykle examined the accused particularly as to the watch and chain. Mr Wylde aske'd the ac'cused if the chain was gold. He 6aid to Mr Wylde, " You ought to know best." I have seen accused with a Watch previously, about seven months ago. I 'could not say if the case now produced is the same. . {The remainder of the proceedings will appear in onr next issue.}