THE HUTT TARRING CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1400, 3 October 1885, Page 1

THE HUTT TARRING CASE.

At the Wellington Police Court on Wednesday the hearing of the case against James Walden of assaulting Sydney N. Muir at the Hutt was continued. In our last issue appeared a part of the evidence taken, and the following is a continuation of it:—

Annie Gillaume, barmaid at the Royal Hotel, deposed that on August 20th, the day after the assault, the accused came into the hotel, and, seeing some camellias on the parlor table, asked her for one, and remarked at the some time that he had got a fine lot at Buckley’s the previous night. She was sure of the date, because it was the day before the Cavalry ball, and as she intended to be present the camellias were given her for that purpose. She was once in the employ of Mr H. S. Fitzberbert, and might have had a conversation with him re the assault, but never iiad any conversation with Muir. Walden had been at the hotel once before, but witness was positive that it was the 20th August when he spoke of camellias. James Smith, proprietor of the Post Office Hotel, was recalled, and said McClelland was like a man who came to his hotel on the 16th August with Walden, but he could not swear to his identity. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Stafford asked the Magistrate to dismiss the information as there was nothing by which to connect Walden with the outrage. The case seemed one of persecution. There was no corroborative evidence to support Muir’s statement that he was tarred at all, and as to the connection of the accused with the perpetrators of the assault there was no evidence whatever. He proceeded to review the evidence adduced, and claimed the benefit of any doubt as to the identity Qf the accused. It would seem as if the prosecution thought that Walden was only the scapegoat for some other person, and that they were pressing it on that account. All the evidence tendered to prove that the accused was at the Hutt had failed. The only evidence was Muir’s and he only fixed upon him because accused was formerly a messenger of Mr Buckley’s. As to the handcuffs, there was no evidence to show that Muir was handcuffed. He discussed the feeble evidence given, and submitted that there was not a tittle to connect the accused with (the alleged assault. lie might be able to show that a little tarring would not hurt, and perhaps he (Muir) deserved it. It was a common punishment for a variety of offences in America, and thought he did not justify it there were many offences beyond the reach of the law which perhaps tarring was a very good punishment for. He concluded by submitting that no case bad been made out which would justify His Worship in sending it to a jury. The accused reserved his defence, and was committed to stand his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court, bail being allowed, himself in £2OO, and two sureties of £IOOO each. The accused obtained bail.