A BENDIGO MINING CASE.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 64, 20 December 1871, Page 3

A BENDIGO MINING CASE.

The attention of the Sandhurst Court of Mines was occupied all Friday with the argument of a motion for new trial in the case Morwood v. Watson. This suit, which was heard some weeks ago, before Judge Macoboy, was an action to recover £IO,OOO, the value of a twelfth share in the Golden Fleece claim, Garden Gully Reef, and the bill was then dismissed because the plaintiff did not bring sufficient evidence to corroborate him. He sought to show that lie was induced to surrender his share on the 7th October, 1867, to Watson in consequence of certain representations made to him by Watson, that there was £9O due on. it in calls, which was subsequently proved to be not the fact. For the defendant evidence was given by himself, his wife, John Ingham, and Henry Stephens, to prove that nothing was said about £9O being due on the share, and also that it was a fair and legitimate transaction. Immediately on the Court giving judgment against plaintiff, notice of application for a new trial was given, the ground for such application being that perjury nad been committed by Watson, his wile, and Ingham, inasmuch as it could be shown by affidavits that Ingham was at Inglewood during the aforesaid month, and on the particular day of that month on which it was sworn be was in Wattle-street. Mr McDermott asserted on Friday that the decree in tho last case had been foully obtained—obtained by the defendant through subornation and perjury ; and that, therefore, for the ends of justice, and the vindication of the purity of the court, a new investigation should be granted. Mr Hartley characterised Mr McDermott’s wholesale accusation of criininalty as unworthy of a man, much less a gentleman and a barrister. He contended on the authority of Honeyman v. Lewis, and Manerty v. London, Chatham, aud Dover Railway Company, that the plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial, because assuming Ingham’s evidence to be a fabrication, and assuming be was there, which was denied, his testimony was not material to the issue, it was not one of the contributing grounds on which a verdict was given for the defendant. After hearing both sides, the court reserved judgment. —BendUjo Advetisrer, November 25.