PUNISHMENT OF A USURER.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2358, 7 October 1880, Page 4

PUNISHMENT OF A USURER.

John Murphy the well-known Christchurch money-lender was indicted at the criminal sessions before Judge Johnston for having, on May 14th, 1880, fraudently altered and forged a certain sale note of grain, purporting to be signed by one George Hodgson, and on a second count for altering the same. The prosecutor stated tnat at the beglning of the present year he borrowed money from the prisoner, giving him an agricultural lien and bill of sale. Subsequently he entered into negotiations with Murphy for the sale of some grain to him. In the course of the negotiations a sale note was drawn up by which the witness sold the grain to him. When application was made to Murphy for payment it was found that the agreement signed by the prosecutor had been altered by the addition of the words —“Delivered at Christchurch,” so that the prosecutor would have to pay the costs of carriage, which would reduce the amount payable by the prisoner for the grain. The prosecutor swore distinctly that the w r ords had been added after he had signed the sale note, and that he had no knowledge of the addition. The evidence was very conflicting, a brother of the accused and a man named Watt contradicting, on oath the statements of the prosecutor and his witnesses. His Honor summed up, and the jury at 2.40 retired to consider their verdict. At 3 p.m. they returned into Court with a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor directed the officers of the Court to retain Michael Murphy and Watt in the Court. A most deliberate conspiracy Had been entered into to get the prisoner off. He was going to consider whether he should not order Michael Murphy and Watt to be taken into custody for perjury. Really the case was one of the worst he had ever had to try. Sergeant Wilson gave evidence as to the character of the prisoner, which he characterised as doubtful. No criminal charge had been brought against him before. His Honor, in sentencing the prisoner, remarked that the case for the defence was a deliberate and false perjury. He should punish the prisoner for the very gross case of false defence, one of the ■worst he had ever listened to. The prisoner asked that he might call evidence as to character. William Howe, cornfactor of Christchurch, deposed that he knew the prisoner for some months. The character he bore was not a good one. His Honor said he must consider this as a gross case. The sentence of the Court was that the prisoner would undergo four years’ penal servitude. Mr Stringer applied under Geo. IV., cap. 64, sec. 22, for payment to the prosecutor out of the moneys belonging to the prisoner of costs of the prosecution. His Honor said he would make the order, as asked for by Mr Stringer the costs to be paid out of the estate of the prisoner. His Honor said he would leave the matter open as to the prosecution of Michael Murphy and Watt, for the public prosecutor to advise whether it should he carried out or not. Mr Stringer, in answer to His Honor said he did not intend to lead any evidence on the perjury case. The prisoner was acquitted by the jury of the charge, no evidence being offered,