RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3181, 30 April 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

YESTEEDAY.

(Before J. Kilgour and E. W. Puokey, Esqs., J's.P.) PEBJURY.

The following is the conclusion of oar report of the Orme perjury case. John Bowden, sworn, deposed—l am a miner living at Tapu. I remember Monday, the, 21st April, when Frank Holt showed me a telegram he had received from the telegraph man. A reply was sent. I knew on the 21st that Frank Holt, my mate, was going to be summonsed for killing pigs. I knew that my mate was to be summonsed as soon as I saw the telegram. I know Daniel Orme. I saw him last on Sunday, the 20th, at Tapu. I bad a oonrersation with Orme and Holt on that Sunday afternoon in Holt's house. I hare seen this receipt before. I saw it made out. It was made up on that occasion. lam not aware of Holt haring sold any pigs to Orme. I board with Holt, and if he sold pigs I would know of it. I will ■wear Holt did not tell any pigs to Orm#,

or have anything to do with supplying pigs to''Orme on the 4th inst. Holt wai under compliment to Orme, and did not like to refuse to sign the receipt. Mr Orme told me what he wanted it for. He said there was a man named Mason poking about, and he (Orme) wanted to show him that be did not know everything. Orme also said that Mason was trying to find how some carcasses got into his shop, and that he was summoned. He said he would just hand this in, and it would squash the case. I have been Frank Holt's mate over 20 years, and am thoroughly intimate with him. Holt evidently did not like giving the receipt, and three or four were made out before he was satisfied.

By Mr Miller—l am sure Holt Bold no pigs on the 4th of April, because if he had he would have told me. I might have missed the pigs if they had been sold. I don't think Holt sold them. I know that six pigs left Tapu on that day or the day previous. They did not come from Holt. The pigs were in the Lady Bath cutter.

This concluded the case for tbe prose cation.

All the depositions were then road over, and the accused was cautioned in the usual manner.

Mr Brassey said he would ntft touch much on the evidence at present, but he did not think the Bench would commit accused in face of what he was about to adduce. Orme had been placed in the box, and when there, was perfectly^ liable to be examined, but the evidence*showed that the examination had been irregular, as the " Further Evidence Act" distinctly provided that all questions must be put through the presiding Magistrate. Colonel Fraser's evidence showed that this had not been done, the greater portion of the evidence having been adduced by questions asked by the defendant's counsel. Mr Brassey quoted the perjury case, Kegina v. Keenan, recently heard at the Oamaru District Court. It was an exactly parallel case to this one, and the accused was acquitted on similar grounds. If any portion of the proceedings were irregular, they could have no weight as far as perjury was con* cerned. He submitted that the law was very clear on the point, and it was impossible that the case should go before the jury. He therefore asked for the acquittal of the accused. The Bench considered that a prima farife case had been proved, and committed accused to take his trial at next session of the Supreme Court at Auckland. Bail was allowed, himself in one surety of £200, and two others of £100 each. Immediately after tbe close of the case the accused was bailed out.