RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3180, 29 April 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. (Before Colonel Fraser, R.M.)

DEUNKENNEBS. Two drunkards were punished in the usual manner.

TEANSFEE OF LICENSE.

John Young applied for the transfer of the license of the Post Office Hotel, Tairua, to Bobert Hale.

Mr Dodd for applicant. Mr Ehrenfried, owner of the premises, appeared and objected to the transfer, which was refuted.

(Before J. Kilgour and E. W. Packey, Esqs., J's.P.) PEBJURT.

Daniel Orme was charged with having perjured himself in the recent case of illegal slaughtering.

Messrs Brassey and Miller appeared for the defendant. Witnesses were ordered out of Court.

Mr Kenny gave a short outline of the facts of the case, and read the definition of perjury by Sir James Fitzstephen, Q.C. He then asked the Bench to call accused and ask him for production of the receipt he had sworn that he received from Holt.

Mr Brassey said that this was too premature a stage to call for the receipt. Mr Kenny said he would not call for the receipt till he required it. Then if it was not produced he would call secondary evidence regarding its contents. Mr Miller said he thought it was only fair to accused that the statements of what the perjury consisted be set forth in the information.

Mr Kenny contended that no exception could be taken to the information, and quoted from Johnston's Justice of the Peace.

James Butler Stoney, sworn, deposed— I am clerk of the E.M. Court, and recollect sitting in the Court on the 21st April, 1879. I remember the case brought before the E.M. Court, Mason v. Orme, for a breach of the Slaughterhouse Act, 1877, on that date. The case was brought before William Fraser, R.M., acting in his judicial capacity. I produce the information. As Clerk of the Court I was present during the hearing of the whole of the case. I remember the accused in this action being sworn in that case, and give evidence before that Court in the case Mason r. Orme. Accused swore he received four pigs from Tapu, dead. They came in a boat from Tapu, and were killed there at Tapu. They were not;warm. They could not be after coming that distance. They were not set, but flabby from knocking about in the boat. He had purchased them from a man named Francis GK Holt, of Tapu, and he produced a receipt signed by Francis Or. Holt, of Tapu. (Mr Kenny here asked the accused counsel to produce receipt, which was done.) The receipt was handed tome. This is the receipt. Orme stated he received the pigs between seven and eight in the evening, and that he had 12 to 16 pigs yet. He did not say where. The four pigs referred to as purchased from Holt were the pigs referred to in the information. I cannot positively swear that Orme personally handed in the receipt to the Court; it was tendered in by the defence. Accused and his counsel were the defence. The receipt was accepted in Court as documentary evidence. The receipt referred to all through my evidence is the receipt now before the Court.

By Mr Miller—l was Clerk of the Court that beard case Mason r. Orme. When documents are handed in as evidence it is the custom to mark them as such. That document was handed to the Magistrate and not objected to. I was present during hearing of evidence. I did not take notes during the hearing, and what it stated of tbe evidence is only from recollection. My memory is not assisted by anything I have seen written or printed. Mr Brassey put Orme into the witness box, and he was examined by Mr Brassey and the prosecutor. To the best of my recollection the B.M. asked Orme " Did you get these pigs dead from Tapu," and accused replied " Yes." I did not state this in the examination of Mr Brassey. There- was nothing direotly said that the four pigs mentioned in the information were those mentioned in the receipt. Ormo did not say who brought the pigs up from Tapu, nor where they had been slaughtered. I swear he did not say that they were killed at Holt's. Orme said, " I got them from Tapu, dead." I produce, the notes of the Resident Magistrate, taken during the Rearing of the case. According to the notes it does not appear that Orme stated that the pigs were killed at Tapu; neither is there any mention of the twelve or sixteen pigs. J have already stated that the receipt was handed in to the Bench. I cannot say I saw it in the possession of the defence before it was handed in. Sometimes the Magistrates do not take notes in full, but I never noticed them ! entirely admitting. ■ The deposition was then read over to witness and signed. John Brooks Mason, sworn, deposed—* I am Inspector of Slaughterhouses to the Borough of Thames, and produce my appointment as such. I remember tbe fourth of April of this year. On that day I inspected a butcher's shop between 6 or 7in the evening. I looked at the meat in the shop and noticed four pigs that especially attracted my attention. I noticed that they were not set, but flabby, and apparently to my touch warm. In consequence of my inspection, I laid an information against Mr Orme for illegally slaughtering pigs. I have been Inspector about 16 months—since January, 1878. The case came on for hearing on Monday the 21st of April, before Col. Fraser, B.M, In that ease I remember Orme giving evidence before the Court on oath. He also tendered a stamped receipt. I cannot swear to the documtnt produced being th« one.

Orme stated that he purchased the four pigs in question from a person named Holt, of Tapu creek, and that they were delivered to him slaughtered. He re* peated that statement in reply to a question from the Bench, and put in a stamped receipt as confirmation of his #lidence. I know it was a receipt, as I heard it read. I believe Mr Stoney, Clerk of the Court, read it. It was handed up to the Bench, and finally, I believe, handed to the defendant's counsel. I think the Magistrate said he did not want to see it. I heard him say he bad 16 pigs at Tapu purchased from the same individual. The information produced was the information in the case. I remember a case against Francis G. Holt for illegal slaughtering. I called the present defendant—Daniel Orme—as a witness. I served a summons on Francis G-. Holt at Tapu creek on the 21st of April. By Mr Brassey—l visited the shop in the evening. I believe it was between six and seven. The pigs were flabby, and, to my touch, warm. You put Orme into the box, and examined him, as also did the K.M., who examined him after you. Yon asked Orme where he purchased the pigs. He said from Holt, of Tapu. Your next question was, " were they received alive or dead." Orme said "dead." I recollect your hajring a receipt and handing it to witness. I think you asked if it was a receipt for four pigs, and he said "Yes." I heard receipt read by some one in Court. After it left your hand Mr Stoney took it and handed it to the R.M., and if I remember right, he said he did not want to see it. I will swear I never had the receipt in my hand. Orme said pigs were delivered to him slaughtered. The examination of Orme in the box was conducted generally by yourself. Orme said the pigs came from Tapu in a boat. The Magistrate did not want to see the receipt and I don't think he had it in his hand.

William Fraser, sworn, deposed—l tm B.M. for Hauraki. I recollect sitting on the case Mason r. Or me on the 21st inst. I remember a receipt being pro* duced for the sale of four pigs. That receipt was produced in support of evidence giren by the defendant la the ease of Mason v. Orme. These are the notes taken at the time. (Note book produced.) The receipt was produced in evidence., By Mr Miller—l think the notes contain the material parts of Orme's evidence. The notes say that Orme purchased them from Holt dead, and the reason they were not set was, because they came up in a boat dead from Tapu.' I don't think the word "delivered"/ was used, only that he had purchased them from Holt. Orme said he had several other.pigs on hit premises, but stated the pigs—the subject of the case—had been brought from Tapu. The receipt was handed to me. I don't remember saying, "I did not want to see the receipt." The Court here adjourned till 2.30 p.m.

On resuming at 2.30, Mr Kenny called— John Bull, who, on being sworn, deposed—l am telegraphist in charge of Grahanistown station. I hare in my possession the copy of a telegram sent by Orme to Holt, of Tapu. I can only produce it on authority being given me by receiver or sender. (Mr Kenny handed witness a docameht.) That authority is sufficient. ■ Counsel for defendant asked permission to see the document handed by Mr Kenny to witness. Mr Kenny: I object to your seeing it as a matter of principle. I will produce the Electric Telegraph Act if you like. Examination continued—l produce a telegram. ,^lt is in the hand-writing of Mr Vincent, my receiving clerk, and I think it was written by him at Orme's instance. The initials "A. J. V.," under signature, imply that. i Augustus J. Vincent, sworn, deposed— I am receiving clerk in the Telegraph Office, Grahamstown. I was occupying that position on April 21st, 1879. I recognise this telegram. The sender is Daniel Orme, and the receiver Mr Holt, Hastings. I wrot© out the telegram at the instigation of Daniel Orme. It was my composition. I frequently write out telegrams when asked to, and also sign the sender's name, my initials under it. I entered it in the book, received the money for it from Orme, and took it to the instrument. I read and showed it to Orme before taking it to the instrument. He told me to enter •' reply paid." [Mr Kenny here tendered the telegram to the Bench.] ' Mr Miller objected to the telegram going in evidence, and quoted from the Elective Telegraph in support of his objection. Mr Bull, recalled, deposed he had received permission from his general manager to produce the telegram. The Bench decided to receive the telegram as evidence. A. J. Vincent, recalled, deposed—All telegrams are sent to head office at WeK lington, and so will this one. I By Mr Miller—The words in the telegram were not dictated by Mr Orme. I By Mr Kenny—When I read telegram to Orme he did not object to it at all. ! Francis J. Holt, sworn, deposed—l am a nriner residing at Tapu. I remember the 21st of this month. I received a telei gram on that day from Mr Orme. I saw Mr Mason on that day, but was not surprised at seeing him after I got the telegram. He gave me a summons. On Sunday the 20th I saw Mr Orme at Tapu. We shook hands, and he called me on one side, and said he had got into a little trouble about a summons from Mr Maion; I was not the party he had: come/to see; but I would do as well. I tried to equivocate and have nothing to do with it, and we went into Hawkes'and had a beer. I took him home with me to have some tea. When there he said if I would sign a little document at his dictation it would get him out of trouble. I was under an obligation to him, and I did not see how I could refuse, so I signed the document. (Receipt proproduced!) That is the document I signed. I was under a monetary obligation to Orme, and not in a position to pay. I never sold any pigs to Mr Orme, nor have I ever sold the carcasses of pigs. I never sent him any pigs on the 4th. No one in the neighbourhood of Tapu is authorised to sell pigs in my name. I do do not slaughter and sell pigs for myself. The receipt was-signed in my house. On Monday my mate was present when I read a telegram from Orme, and he sent the reply to Mr Orme. It was not signed at all. I am not aware of nny pigs leaving Tapu on Sunday. By Mr Brassey—No one was present when Orme said he had got into trouble,; but a person named Hamilton was there soon after. [Left sitting.]