R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 3041, 30 October 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTEKTON-JIONUAY.

(Btfore S.. Von Stunner R.M,

In tho case of Jaoob Knubfli vH. Francis, heard at Carterton, in which tho plaintiff claims £i 10s dainagos for the cutting down of a who fouco on Mr Rayner's property, the Magistrate aaid he would require further time to consider tho evidence, and it was arranged that the decision should bo given on Thursday, November Bth, at Masterton, : i ■ .. l ' ALLEGED PEHJURY, >,

William Spackman, a youth 10 years of ago was charged with committing perjury in giving ovidenco in a caso hoard on 10th October, Walter Junes v Collier and Russell, damaging a wire fence. The prosecutor in that.casein consoquoncoofiufgrmationreceivedfrom Spackman in the presence of witneusos, to the effoct.that Collier, Ruesoll nnd himself had broken tho wires,, summoned the two formtr hoys for the offonco aitd subpoenaed Spackman, On oath Spackman denied having told Jones that tho other two boys had brokou tho fence, and in consequence the case was dismissed, and the present proceedings taken,, .

. Mr Beard Appeared, for thonroseoutioii, and Mr Pownall for the dofeuce., Sorgoaufc Price doposed that lie remombercd the caso Jones v Russell and Collier heard in that Court on the 19th instant. He administered the oath to accused who was a witness in that oaso. The usual bath was administered and sworn to on ,the Bible.

Waltor Jones stated that on the 17th October he went to Dixou's shop, whoro accused worked. Witness eaid to Spackman; ''You larrikins played me a fine trick in breaking my fence." Accused said :■" Yes; it took two of us to break it." Hudson was presont and heard him, foriieremarked:.!' You boys ought'to have a good horso-whip-ping,'' :■: Witness saidhe would go to the police, and then Spaokman said that Russell and Collier did iti . ' Cross examined: Hudson was presont when accuscd.vplunteered'lho statement that ho had cutjho fencji. Accused told of the pthers, arid that was why ho did not include him in the; charge,.. That was in Dixou's. shop, Witness wont there to ask Russell's name. Did not bounce accused in Dixon's' shop. 'Hb did before, that was to say, ho said ho would go.to thepolico. Heard accused swear in Court that he had not said! it ,was Itussoll and Collier who-broke tho fence, and in consequence the case was dismissed.; •,'.» ,■■'■' [■.■■.: < Edwardj H. Hudson, coach-shuth, depoßed'tliat ho was working in Dixon's: shop. Remembered Jones ebmiug" in on. the 17th' Spackinan; ?Es wanted [to/know ■ from 5 ajmsed:whp: ii.;was (hatbroke his fence| : Hd I ;'tliteateae'd \.ki L go ipr ;"|lie bolicb.. .'

pay words p||?| gavotho names of Collin and Witness mado no remark about horsey itiM whipping ' " r . " f1 *, i %mL Cross examinod by Mr PowiiaJUffle,: f , MJJ first thing Jones asked tho did ho want to break tho fence for,<v ffigi Spackinan denied h uing done it He * said Russoll aud Collier ivoro the boys %&<$ who did it. Jones told witness he saw tho three lads break thn fence'' Th boy ms frightened and Answered as if %M ho was anxious to get out of tho scrape. ;*jfe| Witness sjw Jones smco that caso, hoßaulif thoy would pav the costs in' t Hie fust case, ho would drop procoedinw in the perjury case Did not hearii **J& Spackman 6ay to Jones that he Collier had had tho first twist, and tho ( M other two had finished it - Hoard Jones. sa} to Spackman tint he mb going )o Bummon Russoll and bring Spackinan Wl f 'f'fy a witness lv? v ' {"s& Tho papers in connection '■with tho/ \ case Jones v. Collier and Eussoll heard J yl i & on tho 9th mat weie put mbyE W )v *<« Pomtt assistant Clerk of tho Court, and v \'& suointobyhiin. ir « This closed tho case for tho prosocu- £ tion 1 i , 1 < Alr.Pownalladdieesed the Court. .He * & did not bear on'the charge of .perjui^\"ltj,)w;p^t^y necossnry" to suatdn' the;ihforrnat;pn'thW;;g® tho; particulars ;of tho perjmy should; assigncdySlt ■ should alßo:bi|hoyn ; tha6S||l§ii ißßU6;aiiia]the partiou!u< wh"icK'i>t^o^^' it was BOrßhould.be set or its •negatlve^ ;^?i^: The statement iiado by acbußod that : htfj|;ass< novcrßaw.Collins'andiEussell.-cut-.foncejaiid'that hekhe'wnothing of cut, the fence-he material to'the .was .■ 6b]'ected.ito ; hiihv at tho .tiine :M'iS,)|M merely heresaygand: affected the'caso'was what he Bawjtyh3t;::#;i*s h(i"said,t6'a' thindj' to the ws'p;bofo».;t]wcpurt;.' was Jonestown witnbssijani ho ; the case should ; be 'disniisßcdundesirable to;"put .oxpeii6o;of'»'tnal' : :on. : sub!i'eVidenoo':asl;: had bcoii produced.'.'.'-, : v :i ■'■ His whether Spackman r was'vsweanngUlievV'.sp;Si truth, or riot ':■-: ■ Mr.Ppwuall ■Bubhiitted tho '■ point-and quotetl' ■ srip'port ■of his: contention; claimed that the prbduotibh'.of in ; the'"trial'-was not :: wholo ataUment hut been civeri pnd:nb ; ''■•'£!&s averments made' upon the points nllogedperjury. : : ./; ; "■ J v ';^;i;^ : ; ; -:-;.;^;] Mr Beard navini? replied his Worship : %'% ; ; 11 montioriedtliat the .objection. allowed.''};;.: -'■■ \\..l, '^;V.:.':".-v : : : : :r.v:-v:iv;£}'vj .■'"The' usual;charge'.:.was'read "■omo-i' : M defence reserved, and accused committed for. trial, > Bail waslallowed, one father of acoused.'in £25, and two others!^. ■:• in £l2 IPs each, ranking £SO in all;'