SUPREME COURT.—Monday.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 163, 17 April 1872, Page 3

SUPRE ME COURT.— Monday.

(Before IPs Honor Sir G. A. Arney, Knight, Chief Justice.)

Read v. Horsfall. —Mr Whitaker for the plaintiff:; and Mr MacCormick for the defence. The action had been brought from Napier against the defendant, for damages for perjuiy. Five issues were placed before the jury, the chief being whether the allegations made in the declaration were true, and if true what damages was the plaintiff entitled to.— Mr Whitaker, having opened the case, called George Edward Read, who stated that he was a settler residing at Gisborne, Poveity Bay. He was acquainted wnh the defendant, who was of the same place. An action was tried there in december, 1870, in which Horsfall was the defendant, and lie, witness, was the plaintiff. Witness on being examined at the trial, gave evidence which to the best of his belief was true, the same being testified to and corroborated by other witnesses. Witness at a subsequent date was taken into custody upon a warrant in which lie was charged with wilful and corrupt perjury. The charge preferred agauist him was made by Horsfall, and it was read over to him at the Police Court. The charge was heard and dismissed. Ilorsfal 1 was present, hut witness did not recollect whether he was examined. After the action witness thought no more about the matter. Horsfall then said lie would have back the money, or lie would have him “ on the hill.” D aving a man “ on the hill ” was an expression used in Napic:, meaning sending a mau to prison. Horsfall appeared desirous of having a fight, and challenged him, Witness did not want to fight; lie objected to fighting, and he refused the challenge. Witness paid £lO, or as many guineas—lie could not ray which—for In's defence at the Magistrate’s Court.—Cross-examined by Mr MacCormick: It was some time in July, 1870, that it was alleged the conversion of goods took place. Witness owned a craft named the ‘ Maurewai.” It was this vessel which brought to Poverty Bay a quantity of goods from Napier. These were not consigned to Horsfall. He did not know him in the matter. These goods were placed in store, to be taken away when paid for; and lie had received instructions that, if the goods were not c’aimcd, they were to be reshipped, and them taken back to Napier. It was altogether a misapprehension if anyone understood him lo say, at the trial, that the goods were shipped back to Napier by the order of Kenned) . Kennedy was of the firm known as Messrs Routledge and Kennedy. When witness’s captain presented the goods, after they had been reshipped from Poverty Bay to Napier, lie (Kennedy) refused to receive them. —Frederick Adolphus Hardy, clerk in the employment of the last witness, was examined as to details between the present plaintiff and Kennedy.—George Hill, residing in Poverty Bay, was a contractor. He knew both plaintiff and defendant. He saw Mr Horsfall in Napier two or three days before the trial in the Police Court. Horsfall met him in the street and asked him to drink with him. Horsfall told him he would spend his last shilling to put Captain Read in gaol.—By Air MacCormick : Witness met Horsfall casually. Witness had never spoken to Captain Read in his life that lie knew of. This was the plaintiff’s case.— Mr MacCormick, having opened the case for the defence, called Mr Evvin Hesketh, who remembered the case of Horsfall v. Read tried in the Supreme Court. The action was for the conversion of certain goods. Could not state positively that counsel admitted the goods were Horsfall’s. Did not remember the circumstance that there was a formal admission. Recollect that Mr Read was crossexamined by Mr Wynn respecting the goods. They had been sent to Napier from Poverty Bay. He said he sent them because Mr* Kennedy, of Routledge and Kennedy, told him. The witness was referred to notes made in the trial of Horsfall v. Read.—Samuel Thomas Horsfall deposed : I live at Poveity Bay, and know the phiintiff. I remember an action tried in this Court in 1870, in which I was plaintiff and Captain Read defendant. The action was for the conversion by Captain Read of goods which arrived in Poverty Bay. Captain Read was examined as a witness in his own behalf. He was asked by Mr Wynn what lie did with the goods. He said he had left instructions that they were to be forwarded to Napier. I don’t recollect the questions put to him, but I do some of his answers. He stated that Kennedy, of Routledge and Kennedy, had told him to bring the goods. He also stated that Kennedy said the goods ought never to have been shipped in that manner. The goods referred to were those brought from Poverty Bay to Napier. The goods were sent hack by the Tawera. I got them from Messis Watt Brothers. They had no authority to instruct Captain Read to bring those goods hack from Poverty Bay to Napier. Had they done so it would have been contra v y to my instructions. I never heard of them having said the goods were to go back until I heard Captain Read sgy so in this Court. Captain Read left Poverty Bay on the 3rd August. I went with him. It was by tlm'Luna. The Tawera left the next day. It was impossible for Captain Read to receive any instructions after leaving in the Luna, as I returned by the Luna on the Gib, and found the Tawera gone. In the Magistrate’s Comt the verdict was for the defendant. Alter the trial was over I stated to Mr Wynn that some of the statements made by Read were lies, especially when lie said that Mr Kennedy had told him to bring the news back. I got a copy of the Judge’s notes of the evidence. Mr Wynn applied for them. Mr Wynn told mo to see Mr Kennedy, when I k saw him,

and showed a copy of the Judge’s notes as to what Captain Read had stated. Ho said Captain Read had not spoken tho truth. This took place at Napier. I then went to Mr Maddock. That gent’eman has now left the colony aud gone to Victoria. He told me to got Kennedy’s contradiction in writing, which I got. Tho lei ter making the contradiction is the one now pioduced. I never attempted to sway Mr Kennedy in any way to give me the letter. He did it most willingly. I went back to Mr Maddock, who recommended when I went back to Napier to take out a summons against Mr Read for perjury. He said the statements Captain Read made constituted perjury. Tho document produced is a copy of the information I laid. I applied for a warrant when Captain Read wou’d not appear on the summons. Tins was on the 23rd February. I appeared in suppoit of the summons. Mr Wilson appeared for Read, and said Read would not come unless a warrant was issued for Ids arrest, when a warrant was issued,and he came. The charge went for the defendant. —By Mr MacCormick : Captain Read never said that lie had any order to bring hack the goods before they actually came back. Mr Kennedy never contradicted the contents of his letter, which has been read to-day. The Coi . tthen adjourned.