THE DUMMYISM CASES.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3769, 25 March 1891, Page 2

THE DUMMYISM CASES.

COLEMAN PHILLIPS COM. MITTED FOE TRIAL.

The hearing of the charges against Mr Coleman Phillips was resumed at the Besident Magistrate's ' Court yesterday befoieMr H.W. ~ R.M., Mr Gully, Jellicoe, proseouted,and Mr with him Mr Chapman, defended. M, K. Samuel, secretary'to Mr Jacob Joseph, said he was aware of the existence of the firm of Joseph aad Phillips, but all he had to do with the books was to audit them occasionally, the last time being about two yeavs ago. The partnership accounts related to the Dry River run; could not say if the ™ vouchers showed any payment connected whh the Puketoi Blook. First saw the application produced of Rachel Joseph, or one similar to it. about the middle of 1896. v Examined as to the signatures to, 'the other applications witness said he could not recollect them being made, and knew absolutely nothing about the matter at all. Recollected going towards the Mills' office with his son \ but could not say if he (witness) went in. Received application produced (that signed by E. K. Samuel) from • ! the defendant, but could not recollect on what occasion or whether it was given singly or , not,- Mr Coleman , Phillips asked witnesi to get the ' application signed by E. K. Samuel, v. but he did not trouble himself about . the matter much, and could not say whether it referred to the Puketoi Blook. Personally witness knew nothing about it, and relied entirely , on what defendant bad said about family settlement. At this point the witness refused to answer a question as to what he had done with the application after he received it, on the ground that he might incriminate himself. Mr Gully stnngly protested against these parrot-like refusals to answer, which were evidently not bona fide. The witness said that he might be charged with aiding and abetting, and after argument His Worship said he did not think the witness should , answer. '

Examination continued: Gould not reoolleot whether he lodged the application in the land office or not. The applications from Mr and Miaa Samuel were Bigned in Mr Joseph's ' house, and witness received all tho ijfT forma from the defendant, but ho could not say if they were given at tue same time. Witnos3 could not reoolleot what was done with them after they were Bigned, so far as he was concerned. Was not aware that >' the Dry River run wbb taken up under the Aot. Witnesß declined to , sav whether he had anything to do with taking up the Dry River land* Mr Travers contended that question had no relevancy to the.,.**-, charge against hia olient. ~ His Worship ruled that the quea* " , tioa was relevant. Wicness said he got several ap» " r ' plication forms for allotmeuts in the ; Dry River signed. They were handed to witness by defendant, and he was asked to get them, signed by- Miss Joseph, Mrs and Miss Samuel and £. K. Samuel. Deolined to say whether the signature in the ap- , plication form was his, as it might >■ incriminate him. Could not remem* ber what became of the documents , after they were signed, and deoliued \i to answer as to Whether he had lodged his own application or whether he had paid anything to tho Land Board. His Worship ruled that his present opinion was that the question need not be answered, but on further thought he might insist on a reply being given. To Mr Travers: The witness said he was sure he received the forms from Mr Phillips and not Mt Joseph; George Baggett, Receiver of the Land Revenue for. Wellington district, gave evidence that applications for land were brought into his office, and were initialled by him when deposit was paid. After initialled they were handed to the chief clerk. The receipts were generally forwarded to applicants by the witness. The butts of the receipts wore produced. Witness could not reoolleot any ladies coming to the office to pay deposits. The receipts were addressed to the ap* phoants, "care of Nation' and Co." Mi- Phillips' had come to the offioo in 1889, and had paid monoy on account of the Puke toi laud, and had > given instructions-that' the receipts, should be'sent care Nathan and'Gq." Tr Mr Travers s Monev'w'dß ofte'rf paic| oh behalf of 'agents/ and iji wa| not an unusual tiding for' applicants, to appoint agents, J, R, Gibbons, of the Evening Post, and A. E. Hansford, of tho New Zealand Times, produced copies of their respective paperscontaining reports of the proceediupjßu the Land (Jours, Zu'l ™ vo evidences to their" correctness. The transcript of Mr Maijstgrd's verbatim notes of the evidence was put in. E. C. E. Mills gave eyidenqo that ho had attended at tho Land Office, but did not lodge any. -,._, land on deferred payment. £ declined to answer whether he ' made any payments on land, on the- f ground that he'might be charged with conspiring with defendant. ~\ Mr Travers again raised tlje poios as to the relevancy of the qucstibri to the presont case. • r- t • His Worship uphold tho objection, on tho ground that answer might tend to criminate him.; Examination continued ; Never' ittended the Land Board in company; :,■ ivith Mr Phillips, except-on,the, <jH Occasion of J the enquiry."• Oould hot.- ' r vH say if tho 'signature oii ,ion produced was his, and ,o say if ho made the application.;,; Refused to answer,/heo»usfl •eally afraid of being ie would also not say if the ivas his agent,' - *}"--i'*&£®fflKß

-. " MrGnlly pressed the question, but Court did not insist on its being answered. On another question Jieing put, and another refusal '\given, his Worship said he was not to rule on the point - except provisionally. Mr Gully replied that he could not accept that as it meant that all a "•witness had to do was to refuse to answer any question that may r be awkward, simply on the ground that ho might criminate - himself. It was only to explain that the answers were " not made bona fide. He wanted his Worship's ruling on the point at once, as he could not go on with v-'the case. His Worship said he would therefore rule that the witness need not reply, and the latter left the bos. Frank Allen, Justice of the Peace, identified his signature to the declaration signed by last witness. .Knew Mr Mills prior to the date of the declarations for some years. To Mr Travers : Did not examine the contents oi the document, but simply witnessed the signature. J. J?. E. Wright, J.P., said he wasa partner with Mr Joseph in the Island .Bay "estate, but lad nothing to do "with the firm of Joseph and Phillips. Had known the defendant for some years, and had seen him several times at Mr Joseph's house. He asked one occasion to attest * or y° un o Mills. Went to JfiuTstore and found Mr John Mills with the document ready for signature, and he (witness) took the declaration producsd in the usual way. Saw Mills write his name, and / knew it related to land. The document was filled in. Becollected perfectly taking the declaration of Miss Joseph, wbich took place in the din- - The defendant was not ihite on that day, nor did he see Mr Samuel. Believed that the acreage was filled in' when the declaration was taken, and Miss Joseph declared ." the contents to be true. The same evidence was given in connection with the declarations of Mr Joseph . and Mr Samuel. Witness was surprised now to find that there were blanks in the declarations, as be thought they were filled up and in . proper torm. J. F. W. Mills deposed that he saw •. Mr Wright in company with Mr Phillips on one occasion in E. W. Mills and Go.'s premises. One of them produced a document, but he could not say who did so. He was asked to sign it, but he refused to say if he had done so. Witness thought "" he did not keep it, and that it was not ' taken away by Mr Wright but by Mr " Phillips. Witne3S did not lodge it at - the Land Office, and refused to say V whether he paid anything on account of the.laad. Boss Gors, clerk of the Australian "-•TWiitnal Provident Association, was

wwff Mutual Provident Association, was glpf called, ; and was asked by Mr Gully Igiptewhether *h e defendant had made 'lltKOTertures to him concerning taking SSsltip laid. ;Mr Travers objected as such evicould not affect his client after §s|tf conviction, and had nothing to do present charges. Wf&-) After argument, his Worship said would admit the evidence for what it was worth, Mr Travers' objections |ij|r§; being noted in the depositions. Wff; Witnesssaid that the defendant Ipfj spoke to bim about taking up land, |f||feabouti:two years ago. Nothing was| about the district, and the con-

was of a general nature. k I Jellicoe said that Mr Jacob -;'„ Joseph had been subpoenaed to pro- - dace the books of the firm of Joseph -" _ and Phillips. That gentleman was, however, unable to attend, but it would be sufficient if Mr Samuel would produce them, "v. Mr Samuel was placed in the box, and he said that the boots were not

in his possession. Mr Joseph could give evidence on the point. argument on both sides followed, and in the course of this Mr Travers said that he would have to look through the books to see if there was anything to imperil his clients 2' case before advising whether they _'"> should be given up. £ Mr Gully remarked that this meant ~" that if the books were of no use they r 5 - could have them. He had, however, '-." sufficient evidence on the point, and T 3 - would not press for the production of '" V the books. This closed the case for the prose- ". eution, and the further hearing was adjourned till this morning at eleven ~ o'clock.— Times. Wellington, Wednesday. & At the Magistrates' Court this v - morning in the dummyism cases Mr \ c Coleman Phillips was committed for trial, bail being allowed in himself '"" £2OO and one surety of £2OO,