AUCKLAND POLICE COURT. Friday.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 1811, 12 May 1874, Page 3

AUCKLAND POLICE COURT. Friday.

ALLEGED INCITING TO MURDER; John San<jster Ma.cfa.bunb appeared to answer an information and complaint, laid by Christopher Atwell Harris that he did on or about the 10th day of November, 1870, at the city of Auckland aforesaid, solicit, persuade, and encourage one Thomas Craig, of Whangapoua aforesaid, to murder this deponent! being an indictable offence.. There are two other informations laid against the defendant, one of a similar nature to that now being heard, but in which the date of the offence is set down as the 15th October, 1871; and a third—" That on or about the ,12th of November 1870, he did solicit, encourage, persuade, and propose to one, Andrew Craig to murder the said Christopher A. Harris."

Mr Eees opened the case for the pros' ecution. Christopher Atwell Harris, job., deposed: lama settler at Whangapoua. I was at Whangapoua in 1870 and 1871. I remember on the 29th of October, 1870, I took possession of certain logs at Opotinui. On the 4th of November between twenty and thirty men were landed by a small vessel outside. So far as 1 know the men were employed by Mr J. S. Mac-' farlane. Myself and men employed by me were on the raft composed of .these logs. On the morning of that day at the. mill, John Macfarlane (Mr J. S. Macfarlane's manager) and Smallpage came up to me and asked me to give them possession of those logs, showing me what they pretended was an order of the Supreme Court ordering me to do so. On looking at it I saw it was merely an brdor of Thomas Macffarlane, Provisional Trustee. I declined to recognise the order. If they produced the seal of the Court or Judge Arney's signature they should have the logs. They then told me they would take forcible possession of every log. I told them not to attempt to do any such thing, that if Iwas doing wrong they had their, remedy, but should not use force. In the' l afternoon four or five boats full of men came up with the tide to take possession of the raft. As the first boat came up I called out several times to them to keep off the raft. They took no notice, but kept pulling oh. A man in one of the the leading boats got up with a pike pole to jump on the raft. Seeing they were determined to use foroe, and, after pushing a boat off once, Iproduced a revolver. They attempted to take tho raft. If they got on I believe there would have been bloodshed. I said I would use force if they attempted' to get on the raft, and said I would shoot the first man who got on. Upon this they pulled off, and abused me. On and after the attack on the raft from public rumours I heard, and acts done, I believed my life was in danger. Hearing that violence was to be done I naturally thought I was the party it would be used against. In 1871 proposals were made for the settlement of all disputes between Harris and Craig. _ I was at that time willing to settle with them. The settlement did not come about. The reason I did not lay any information about these matters prior to this time was because I had not evidence. After the time when I proceeded against Craig, at Coromandel, for holding a pistol at me I always suspected Mr Macfarlane was at the bottom of it, because Craig in his evidence said he was advised in Auckland he might shoot me, but had no evidence of it? On Saturday last I got evidence, and on Monday submitted a written statement of it to. Mr IfacOormick.a solicitor. On Tuesday he gave rae his written opiniou, and on Tuesday afternoon I laid the. information. I remember the time in 1871 when Craig came down in a cutter with about twenty men. A day or so after they had landed I was up the Waitekuri Creek on a log, when Mr Craig came up in a boat and attempted.to shoot me with a revolver. A few clays after that,, as I was going down with a raft of logs, we were attacked at the entrance to Whangapoua by between twenty and thirty white men and thirty or forty natives, all half-drunk. Mr Craig was'not there.' He was at Coromandel on a charge of attempting to shoot me. John Maofarlane and James Gibbons were ia tho attack. The other men were strange. According to the best of my knowledge they were in J. S. Macfarlane's employ. Although no lives were lost one man on each side was wounded in the battle of the logs. Thomas Craig deposed as follows :-»I have been a timber-merchant. I remember news coming at the and of October, 1870, that Harris had seized oertain logs at Whangapoua. I saw Mr J. B'. Maofarlane about the matter. I saw' him daily about that time. I had a conversation with him about the logs in his office in Queen-street, and after consultation we came to the conclusion that it was best' to get a good many men' to go down to take possession of the logs by force. Reference was then made to young Harris. If he was there and obstructed, I was to shoot him down. Young Harris was particularly mentioned. It was defendant who madOi the suggestions to shoot Harris. It was oftened mentioned. He said he had such power both with the bank, the jury, and the Government that he could get me off. The proposition, was made frequently. It was scid seriously. It was brought up too often to be in a joking way. I was to go down with the men that were to bo hired. I was to hire the men, and tell them if they would not fight for the logs thoy were not to go. 1 About twenty owa were biwk At this

time I was a bankrupt, and had assigned all my property over to J. S. Macfarlane. ' He consented to buy Burtt's debt, which was seoured by a mortgage on the mill plant. He proposed to do this for mo, , not himself. . Mr Hesketh>sked how this boro upon the case ? Mr Bees explained that the deeds which were then prepared were hidden ' from Mr Craig, and were only brought out about six months ago, so that if anything happened to Craig, Macfarlano would have oome into the property. Cross-examined by Mr Hesketh: Before Mr Macfarlane proposed that I should shoot Mr Harris, I had once carried Harm in my arms and put him in the water. I had a strong feeling ■ against him then and have still, but not in the same way. I have heard Harris give evidence in the Supreme > Court. I would believe him on his oath if what ho , said agreed 1 -: with my own mind, but I would not if it didn't. I won't -say whether or not he is capable of speaking . the truth. Burtt had a judgment against,' me for £1,700 and a mortgage' on ; tho mill. His interest was afterwards bought ( by Mr Macfarlane, who purchased for ' himself, but he was subsequently joined by Wilson. Mr' Macfarlane had never denied that he was working the mill for , me. Ho had told me that h$ was carrying on the mill for my benefit, and at other times denied it. I was not at the mill for two years after I signed the deed, and was not-dismissed for I was there.for six months superintending, and had a claim against the defendant for Wf.,es. My son Hugh was engaged in Auckland keeping the accounts. Thodefends it had said that he was not work- - ing the property for my benefit. He told • my wife that he had given enough to the Craig family and " would not give them) "I another damned shilling." The matters between Mr Macfarlane and, myself have been referred to arbitration, and he has agreed to render accounts, and account for every shilling he has received. He is still bringing me in debt to him. Ever' since I fell out with the defendant the morning after he offered' me the_ gun, I have not been friendly with him, and have misdoubted his intentions. I told Mr Uee3 nearly a year ago what the de-' fendant said about shooting Mr Harris. I put the statement into writing- 0n... Saturday or Monday. Mr Rees wrote it ; and I signed it'. I never put it into writing before that because T was not . asked. Monday was the first time I was • ever asked .to sign a statement of it. I knew what use was going to be made of it. I believe that my son Andrew told. Mr Rees about Mr Maofarlane's • inoiting' me to shoot Harris, and that was why I waß asked to sign ithe statement. My son had not previously told me what the"' defendant said to him. There was no one present when the conversations occurred about Harris. I never, con : sented, and I refused'to take the defendant's gun, and his guarantee to get me . off if I was convicted. I had good rifles of my own, and was always a good shot. My son gave me no reason for not telling, me why he did not want me to go to „ Whangapoua., I firmly believo that Mr; Macfarlane seriously proposed to me • to; shoot Harris.' Mr Rees was the first to : tell me what my son Andrew knew about' defendants'proposal. That was within • the last three weeks. I have not spoken . ito Harris, jun., since''the affray at Coroi mondel in November, 1871. lam not , i on speaking terms with Harris, sen. Any. . communications I have vto make with , them afe made through somebody else. I 1 first refused to sign the statement. I made . i' ; >inquiries and hesitated, to see what . the oonsequenoes would be. I found out" that the consequence would be that the : defendant would be pulled up. I thought - ' i over it perhaps for a diy or two, and i hesitated when the paper was put.before',,.. i mi I thought that if I put the statei menfc into writing the defendant would be i stopped in his'villainy. I have never trusted him since the trial of Mohi v. , Craig, and have not'spoken to him since ■ I came up from Whangapoua about 12 , months ago. I told Mr Rees then what ' the defendant had asked. At this stage [ the case was adjourned until next ; morning, : '