SINGULAR PERJURY PROCEEDINGS.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2310, 12 August 1880, Page 2

SINGULAR PERJURY PROCEEDINGS.

[By Telegraph.]

Christchurch, August 12

Some singular proceedings for perjury are going on at Christchurch at present. John Murphy, the bill broker, having been committed for trial for perjury in connection with a sale note for grain, which he is alleged to have altered after it was signed by inserting the words “at Christchurch,’’ so as to make the stuff deliverable in town, has now sued the prosecuting farmer, George Hodgson, of Gust,and yesterday the latter was charged before the Bench with wilful and corrupt perjury. Murphy, who was represented by Mr O’Connel, gave evidence to the effect that when the bargain about the grain was made only his brother Michael Hodgson, and James Watt were present, and that Hodgson verbally consented to the alteration of the sale-note making the delivery in Christchurch. Mr Stringer cross-examined the prosecutor at some length, but his memory was so defective that he could get, little out of him. As for Janies Watt of Sydenham, bailiff, the worth of his testimony may be measured by the following description of himself given in cross-examination : —“ I was in the police force, and left for a breach of discipline. I was preraitted to resign. I was fined for receiving a gratuity while in the force. I was fined on several occasions for drunkenness. I won’t swear whether I was fined for using unnecessary violence to a prisoner. I can’t remember if I have been fined for neglect of duty and obedience. I can’t remember if I have been fined for being absent without leave—l might have been, About April, 1879,1 was employed by the Railway Department as a detective. One Fowler was tried as the result of my investigations, andl

believe that ®n that occasion I made a wager o£ 5 to 1 that the man would he convicted. I was severely admonished by Judge Johnston ; he spoke to me rather stiff. I have received no money from Murphy lately.” Michael Murphy, the next witness said —“ I have twice been committed foi trial —once for conspiracy to defraud, and the other obtaining money by false pretences. I shouldn’t think I have been told by the Court I wouldn’t be believed; I should’nt think it would be in Mr Mellish’s place to do so.” The case has been adjourned.