ALLEGED PERJURY.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2376, 28 October 1880, Page 2

ALLEGED PERJURY.

In tlie Provincial Council Chambers Christchurch, yesterday, Michael Murphy, the well known money lender, and James Watt an ex detective were charged with perjury. The information, laid by George Hodgson, Cust, set forth that the accused, on the (3th day of October instant at Christchurch, did falsely, wickedly, wilfully, and corruptly commit wilful and corrupt perjury in the testimony which they gave upon oath as witnesses at the trial of a certain indictment against one John Murphy, for forgery, at the Circuit Court of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The evidence on which the information was laid was proved by James Plunket, a reporter for the Christchurch “ Star.” The witness stated that after the jury in the late criminal case of John Murphy had returned their verdict, His Honor spoke as follows : “ Officer, don’t allow Michael Murphy, or Watt, the witness, to go out of Court. There has been a deliberate conspiracy to procure evidence to get the prisoner acquitted. I am going to consider whether I should not direct that Michael Murphy and Watt shall be taken into custody, and prosecuted for perjury.” Hodgson, the prosecutor, stated in cross-examination that he came direct from the north of England in iB6O. Had never been charged with cattlestealing there. (Suppressed laughter.) Had not been promised a sum of mone} r if Murphy was convicted. Heard a party mention that they were going to get up a memorial ; it might be in plaster of Paris for anything he knew. Had had no mention of moueju No inducement had been held out to him to prosecute. The charge against James Watt was also stated, and counsel for the prosecution submitted that in case of a committal the accused should not be allowed out on bail, Jest they should pursue their old tactics and by manufacturing false evidence defeat the ends of justice.’ The Bench adjourned the Court while they considered their decision. On resuming the Chairman said : The Bench have carefully considered the circumstances of this case ; and with the evidence before them in 1110011 they lind a remark from the Judge—(clause read) —considering these circumstances they do not consider themselves warranted in granting bail. The Bench think it rigid to express their opinion that in the cross-examination of one of the witnesses (Hodgson) the counsel somewhat exceeded his privilege in putting the question—“ Were j’ou ever charged, in Adelaide, with cattle stealing?” Mr M'Conncll submitted that questions of the kind wore not at all uncomuion. Questions of the same character were put to the accused when he was in the witness box. He felt that the Bench had done something uncalled for in making such u remark. The Chairman—We make it according to our lights. The case against James Watt was now proceeded with. The witnesses examined were James Plunkett, A. B. Bloxam, J. B, Stanscll, George Hodgson, and Mary Ann Hodgson. The case closed at half-past 3 o’clock, and the prisoner was committed for trial. Bail was refused.