[CRIMINAL SITTINGS].

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 151, 25 June 1880, Page 2

[CRIMINAL SITTINGS].

"William Acton Blakeway Adams was charged with wilful and corrupt perjury in a certain case heard in the District Court on the 12th February. Mr Fell, with him Mr Bunny, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Conolly for the defence. On the names of the jury being called over, excuses were received from Thomas Raine and Henry Buckeridge,but his Honor said that he was unable to accept them, and a penalty of £5 would be inflicted upon each. Mr Bannehr asked for exemption on the ground that he was engaged in reporting for the Colonist, but his Honor said he had no power to excuse him. Upon the indictment being read, the defendant stepped into the dock, but was told by the Judge that there was no occasion for him to stand there, but he said that he had no objection to do so. After the indictment had. been read Mr Conolly asked that he might be allowed to sit near him at the table. His Honor said that the crime with which the defendant was charged being only a misdemeanor he might be permitted to do so. Before the Jury were called His Honor said that the defendant had the right to a peremptory challenge, but the prosecution had none. All those who were not peremptorily challenged were to pass on to the jury box. and then, if any of them should be required, cause would have to be shown why they should not serve. The Eegistrar then proceeded to call the Jury when the following challenges were made : — By the Counsel for th/j prosecution : — C. F. Watts, J. C. Moutray, G-. Hodgson, J. R. Dodson, W. H. Turner, D. Macdonald, H. Hounsell, F. H. Pickering, J. Sharp, W. Wells, E. Levien, 11. Mcllae. '• By the Counsel for the defence : F. H. Blundell, H. E. Curtis, G. Gillow, C. de V. Teschemaker, H. 0. Raikes, C. B. Wither, C. S. Saxton, D. W. Irvine, T. H. Bannehr, and M. Andrews. This left only nine in the jury box, namely, H. Edwards, J. W. Lightband, J. Oldham, J. W. Bamicoat, W. Wastney, A. R. Muir, J. R. Marsden, C. H. Brown, and Hugh Martin. His Honor said that the proper course to pursue now was to call over the names of those who had been ordered to stand by by the prosecution. Mr Conolly submitted that the whole j panel should be called over again, including those already in the jury box, and only excepting those peremptorily challenged. All those already in the box were then ordered to leave it. The first name on the new call was , John Sharp. He was ordered to stand by by the prosecution, but His Honor ruled that it now rested with the prosecution to show cause, and not merely to order to stand by. Mr Fell said, first, that Mr Sharp was one of the Bench who had dismissed the case ; and secondly that he was known to be partial in the matter, and had openly expressed an opinion. Mr Conolly said that Mr Sharp having been chairman of the Bench of Magistrates, the defendant was quite willing that he should be excused. Robert Levien was then called, but challenged by Mr Fell on the ground that he had expressed opinions favorable to the defendant. Mr Fell was then about to ask Mr Levien whether such was the case, when Mr Conolly urged that he was not entitled to do so. His Honor said that he did not consider this sort of thing at all satisfactory. He should have thought that where people were believed by both sides to be indifferent they might have been accepted. It amounted to something like an imputation that they could not be trusted to go into the trial indifferently. After some discussion between Mr Conolly and Mr Fell, the former said that they had [ agreed to take Mr Levien and the next |

eleven who might be drawn f rom the box,those peremptorily phallenged being, of course, excluded. Mr Fell said that Mr' Conolly had misunderstood him. His intention was to exclude Mr Levien and to take the next twelve. His Honor said that the only course now was to try the jurors objected to, and he instructed the Sheriff to call two individuals from among those present to " try whether Robert Levien, one of the jurors, stands indifferently to try the prisoner at the bar," Messrs ,Hackett and Bethwaite were then called and sworn as " tryei-s," but some dis-; cussion arising as to whether the " tryets " might examine Mr ,Levien, Mr Fell, after again cbiisultihg with Mr Conolly, agreed to acce'pD Mr Levien and tilie next eieveu'^ Tite following jurors were then sworn : — -Sle'SsriJ J. "YV. Barnicoat (foreman), A. R. Muir, G-. W. Lightband, D. Macdonald, F. H. Pickering, J. W. Marsden, C. F. Watts, J. C. Moutray, J. Oldhani, W. Wastney, 11. Levien, and W. H. Turner. , THese preiiinin : aries occupied exactly an. hour and a hail, ariel it Was Half-pa's.!; eleven 1 when the counsel for the prosecution r&ge to' address the jury. In opening for the prosecution Mr Fell said that he did not propose to read the whole indictment, but it was sufficient to say that the defendant Adams was charged with perjury in a certain trial in the District Court in February. last. The facts, which wefe hot very complicated, Were as follows i~ Edmund Walter Thomas, the prosecutor iii the present action, was the owner of a protjerfcy at Marah.au consisting d'f freehold and leasehold lands together with 1 chattels aid some stock. The freehold property was mortgaged to Adams who also had a bill of sale over the stock. Towards the end of last year the sum of £050 was due on the mortgage, and it had. been arranged for some time that the property should be realised in satisfaction of the mortgage, and with that view Adams had used his endeavors to sell the place. In October or November, Donald, a farmer at Wakapuaka, proposed to Adams to purchase the property, and in consequence of interviews between them, he went over to' see it. By the time lie returned, ABams was in Wellington attending to his duties as a member of Parliament. Donald went home to Wakapuaka and wrote a note — which they would afterwards hear of as the pink letter — to Adams, which was forwarded to him, and by him returned to the firm in Nelson. The contents of this pink letter were an offer to purchase upon certain conditions. A reply to that letter was written by the firm, accepting the offer With certain modifications. After this Donald saw the defendant Adams in his office, and instructed him to prepare a memorandum containing the terms agreed upon. Of these Adams took a note, and, in accordance with the memorandum, an agreement was prepared, and in January, Donald, on his way to Marah.au, called at the office and executed the deed, and, in settling his bill, in which £2 2s was charged for the agreement, he represented to the clerk that £1 is should be struck off, and upon his mentioning it to Adams the reduction was made. Donald then went to Marahau and settled there, and after a short time, bejng fearful of fire owing to the dry season, he wrote to Adams and Kingdon asking them to insure, which they did in his namo. That being the state of affairs, it appeared that Thomas, concluding that the sale of the property released his sheep, sold them to Boyes, and Adams, finding that this had been done, proceeded against Boyes for £5G ss, their value, stating in his claim that Thomas had, by bill of sale, secured the sheep to him. To this a defence was lodged, one of the grounds being that, in addition to the bill of sale, the plaintiff held a deed of mortgage under which he had sold Marahau to Donald for a larger sum than was secured by the mortgage and the bill of sale together. This action was heard before the District Court, and the principal defence relied upon was that just stated, and on the evidence given then by Adarnsjthe present proceedings were brought. He did not purpose now to state the exact words used by Adams at that trial ,but might say roughly that he denied the sale to Douald. No evidence of the sale was brought forward, and consequently it was held to be not a good defence, and judgment was given for the plaintiff. Subsequently, Boyes brought an action against Thomas and upon the facts which then came out, it was considered necessary by Thomas to commence these proceedings. The statements alleged to have been made by Adams were undoubtedly material to the case at issue, and should they be satisfied that he did make those statements there could be no doubt as to their verdict. In conclusion Mr Fell said — This is a matter of very great trouble to me, and I have no doubt it is so to all concerned in this unhappy ease. But, be that as it may, I feel that I have _ a clear duty to perform, and I shall not shrink from, performing it from personal feelings, nor shall I allow them to influence me in any way, but I shall endeavor to do my bestnot to obtain a conviction, and I ask you to bear this in mind— but to enable you to arrive at the truth, and I feel sure that I need not ask you, as gentlemen and sworn jurors, to thoroughly weigh and give proper effect to the evidence laid before you on both sides, and so to arrive at your decision. If you are able to find in favor of the defendant, I am sure your verdict will give general satisfaction, and none will be better pleased than myself at such a result, but on the other hand an adverse verdict most not be shrunk from if you feel it to be your duty to return it. I can assure you that I shall carefully avoid pressing anything unfairly, but I am determined to do. my duty, which is to help you to the best of my power in arriving at the truth. The following witnesses were then called : H. Clinton Baddeley, who was examined by Mr Bunny, deposed that he was Clerk of the District Court, and held that position on the 12th February last. I produce the plaint and defence in the case W. Acton B. Adams v. E. Boyes of Motueka, which was tried at the District Court befora Judge Broad, on the 12th February, when judgment was given for the plaintiff for £M 16s, and £9 16s costs. lam also Clerk to the Resident Magistrate's Court, and produce the plaint of the action Thomas v. Boyes, Mr Conolly said he did not know why this plaint was asked for. Mr Adams was not a party to that action. Mr Fell did not wish it. . . Witness continued : I was present at the hearing of the case in the District Court, and the accused gave evidence in that case, being sworn by myself in the usual manner. I produce a Gazette defining the boundaries of the Nelson District Court. Mr Boyes resides in Motueka, and Mr Adams in Nelson, both being within the jurisdiction of the District Court. Lowther Broad, examined by Mr Fell, deposed : lam Judge of the Nelson District Court. I was acting as such on the 12th February last. I remember the case of Adams v. Boyes, which came before me for trial without a jury on the 12th February. 1 The document produced is the defence filed in that case. The accused was the plaintiff in that case. I recollect Mr Adams being, examined as a witness in that case on his own behalf, and he was cross-examined. I took some notes of his evidence, and I have before me in my note book. (Mr Broad then read his notes of the evidence given by MiAdams.) I do not take verbatim notes ; of course not. He. said, " I had an offer from Donald for the sale of Marahau." . The term, Marahau was not very clearly defined. I understood it to mean the property mortgaged by Mr Thomas to Mr Adams. Something

"was said about a pink letter. It tfasl explained {hat the only offer received by Mr Adams was written on pink paper. Evidence was given of the lofis of that letter, and I admitted secondary evidence of its contents. Mr Adams said '"I never accepted that offer. 1 ' I don't recollect whether he said distinctly that there wus no other writing between him and Donald respecting the sale of Maruhau. It is not on my notes. I understood at the time of this trial that Mr Doua'd was in possession of this property. Mr Adama distinctly said fchttt he had never given Donald possession, and that he had never authorised his taking possession. The questions as to whether 1 there w«b an agreement I understood referred to tup sth ground of defence in the action; There wus no evidence offered on the other' dide al 16' the existence of such an agreement as that set tip",- Tbe sth ground of defence 1 understood was virtually dibtilndoued after Mr Adams's evidence; there #ad flo evidence in support of it. My decision was really on a point of law, and not on the sth ground of defence. I decided for the plaintiff. I am a'lao Besideut Magistrate for the district of Neiaoh; a'tfd vfraa aetiug as such on the sth April last when a &isa of Eoyea v. Thomnß was tried before me. It ttris an action to recover the amount he had had to pay in consequence of the previous action, £34 Id's, the amount of the judgment and something in addition for costs. In that oase Mr Adams was examined. [Mr Broad read his notcH of: the evidence.] Mr Conolly agfced for Mr Broad'a notes to be given to the Jury. Hia Honor said it Was not a usual thing. They were admitted not to be complete; Mr Conolly Only wantdd them: put in 1 the same position as the other evidence, and as though he had been able to take notea of it. His Honor agreed that this should be so. Witness continued : Mr Adams did not say when tho entry waa made in hia day book. I understood that the verbal arrangement waa mado some time in January, and I supposed the entry was made at that time, lor he said, "The terrilj were entered in my day book." Tho letter produced waa also produced at the hearing of the case Boyea v. Thomas. The Borough of iVelsoh is a place in which the District Court, constituted fot (ho District of Nolson, has held sittings. His Honor: I obaerve that Mr Adams has left the Court ; it is probable that be may have misunderstood me, but he ia not at liberty to leave the Court. Mr Adams having returned, Mr Conolly explained that ho did so merely under a misappreheusioiii Mr L. Broad waa then crosis-examined by Mr Conolly; when he said i I have known Mr Adam's wbo has been practising for ft number of years since I came here 10 years ago. He his also been rflpresflntati*e for the City in Parliament. I thought Mr Adams's SvMenee as to the agreement applied to the fifth ground oi defence. A great number of questions were asked about the pink letter, and the supposed receipt and acceptance of this letter. At the first trial Mr Adams said he never accepted the offer in the pink letter. A letter written by his firm to Donald, put ill my hands just now, was not read at that trial. It was produced at the second trial, Boyes v. Thomas. I think the whole cross-examination tended to the point as to whether Mr Adams had made an agreement. It may have been the agreement contained in the pink letter. I believe I said, "I suppose you 'mean, Mr Adams, an agreement binding under the Statute of Frauds, for no other would he of use to you." I may have said written agreement, but Ido not remember. It seemed to me that after Mr Adams had said there was no written agreement, that the other side were trying to set up some verbal arrangement. I have no recollection that Mr Adaing replied, "I have signed nothing;" but in the second case he said that he said so. Inhi s letter there had been no suggestion of any agreement, except that contained in the pink letter. At this stage the Court adjourned, Mr Acton Adams entering into his own recognisance in the sum of £200 to attend at two o'clock. Acton Adams never denied for a moment that there were verbal negotiations going on with Donald. He repeated that he never gave Donald possession, and that he had not signed any legal contract for sale. He was was pressed and said " I have signed no thing." At the last trial an agreement was produced signed by both parties. It waa dated 24th March, and. he said he signed, it on that date. The letter marked "A " was written by Adams and Kingdon to Donald, and Mr Adams said he had never seen it before. The letter is not in Mr A. Adams's handwriting. With reference to the day book, he said the terms were entered in my day book. I think he said he had never seen the agreement before but that the terms would be entered in the daybook. I think he was the first to mention the daybook, and it appeared to me he made a full answer, I do not know whether the other side would have known of the entry in his own handwriting had it not been for his saying so. I do not know what they knew. His reference to the day hook was quite voluntary. Donald was examined in the second action. He said he took everything over from Thomas. I don't think he said he was given possession by Thomas. Ec-examined by Mr Fell : Mr Adams said he had been to try to arrange a sale to Donald. He said nothing to lead to the belief that the arrangements had been completed. Mr Adams said that there had been a written offer, and that he had not accepted it, that there was nothing else. By His Honor : I don't think I can safely speak to what does not occur on my notes. By Mr Fell : Mr Adams did not tell me there was any other agreement other than a written agreement. lam quite clear on that point. He had been trying to arrange a sale, and I concluded he had not succeeded. He clearly did not say anything to lead me • to suppose that a sale had been concluded. I have seen the agreement in your hands at the first trial ; he said nothing to lead me to suppose it was in existence. Mr Conolly : Mr Adams swore that he knew nothing of this agreement at the time of the first trial, and that is our case. Francis James Blundell, examined by Mr Bunny, deposed : I am the editor of the Nelson Evening- Mail, and held that position the 12th of February last. I remember the hearing of the case Adams v. Boyes in the District Court. I reported that case. I was present when Mr Acton Adams gave his evidence. I read the report of the case after my notes were printed. I compared my notes with the proof after it was set up by the compositor. Mr Bunny was about to hand Mr Blundell a copy of the paper, when Mr Conolly asked whether that was the proof which he had examined, and the witness replied that it was not. . Mr Conolly then objected to his giving evidence upon what was neither the examine copy nor the original notes. ; By the Court : I read my proof with the original notes. Mr Fell wished to ask Mr Blundell whether the paper was not always the same as the corrected proof. . . ; His Honor thought this was not evidence. The witness then said that he had read the paper containing the report after the paper was published. •'-' '•-' ' ._ ' • His Honor : It is the same as in an action for libel, you cannot produce a copy of a paper not purchased at the office and say it is the same as the copy which, aotuallv was purchased.

Examination continued : I was present in Court and heard Mr A. Adams give his evidence. I cannot commit myself to any etatement of what that evidence was. Robert Donald was the next witness called, and in examination by Mr Bunny, said : I am a farmer, residing at Marahau. I made an offer to Mr Adams for the purchase of that property, and I made that offer by letter about the latter end of November, and I believe the letter was written on pink paper. Mr Bunny then asked for the letter to be produced. Mr Conolly : The letter is believed to nave been lost, and I offer no objection to secondary evidence. Examination contained : The contents of the letter ore to be seen in the agreement drawn up afterwards as near as possible except as to 8 per cent. I received this letter signed by Adams and Kingdon. Mr Conolly then admitted that . the letter was in the handwriting of Mr Percy Adams, the partner of Mr Acton Adams, and that those two gentlemen form the firm of Adams and Kingdon. Witness : The letter came through the post, and I received it about its date at my late residence at Wakapuaka. After receipt of that letter I acted on it and came into town and made arrangements with Thomas to go over to Marahau. I told him I had purchased the property, I went to Marahau two or three days after receiving the letter.. I then purchased all the forming implements which I considered would be useful to me. He showed me the boundaries of the property and the Maori land adjoining, and gave me possession. I can't say I stated as to who I bought the property from, but he understood it. I employed a man to look after the place in my absence, having to go to the West Coast as a witness about the beginning of December. I returned a few days before Christmas. On my return I prepared to take my stock and family to Mara? hau, and I did take them.