RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XX, Issue 1654, 10 February 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Thursday.— (Before Col. Lyon and Mr ''« *' W! N.'SdaifcrtMe/ J<P.) -Mi r j The Whakatutu Perjury Case. J , Committal of -the .Accuse^ , The CohftVeiu'tiieaiirTd o'clodk'. The Bench said they had decided to commit the prisoner for trial to' the Supreme Court, being of opinion that the evidence -.given- , by ,the prjsonerin.the case of forcible entry of Horiu Puao and Ani Whnta against B. B. Walker and others, was material to the issue in that case. Mr Hay drew the Court's attention to the fa,c'fthat'thcy were proceeding irregularly': ' The accused /had a right to be heard in his defence before he Was committed:" Their 'Worships' , should haye 1 B&iA&prinw facie case had been made out, and then asked for the defence.. How) dfcMhey know' Be (MrHay)<aid.not intend to call evidence ?• / ' Mr Whitaker drew attention to the fact thajt Mr Hay informed the Court on the previous evening, at the closing of the case for the prosecution, that he did not intend to call evidence, but merely to address the B,ench on the question ot the materiality 6f the 'pris6iier's evidence in the forcible entry easel The Bench had, consequently, concludedthe defence did not intend, calling any evidence* i r> -; , A "discussion then ensued between counsel as to the course to be pursued, Mr Hay upholding his right to address the Bench on a question of law as well as upon the materiality of the evidence. Mr Whitaker objected to Mr Hay. addressing the Court on a point of law, and contacted he (Mr Hay) should confine tajlelf solely to the question of materiality. Mr Hay subsequently proceeded. The case had arisen out of a case, or at least a series of cases of forcible entry heard not very long ago. Before entering upon his remarks, he would ask their Worships to expel from their minds anything which may have transpired out of Court, or anything which was not directly connected with the case. He had stated on the previous evening lie would confine n«y remarks he might make to the, question of mp.tc.iiality. This he would do. Mr Hay then entered upon the definition of the crime of perjury — what constituted perjury ; and quoted a number of authorities in proof of the tact that the prisoner had not committed perjury in the eye of the law, but had merely been guilty of telling lies, the allegations as set forth in the information being immateiial to the issue in the forciolc entry case. And if the evidence of this witness did not in any way effedt the decision of the Bench, the only harm which the prisoner's perjury could have done reverted purely on himself: and to his God alone would he have to lender an account. If, on ths other hand, the piisoner's evidence had affected the liberty, the person, or pioporty of any pei son injuriously, then it was mateiial evidence, and lie Avas guilty of perjury. Mr Hay then quoted a number ot cases, and readjiom Russell ou Crimes in suppoi t of his assertions. Mr Whitaker here objected to MrHay dealing with the question of insufficiency of evidence, which was outside the question of materiality. An argument on a point of law was entirely out of place thetc. Mr Hay upheld his right to deal with the quebtion of insufficiency of evidence, as well as that of matei iality. He w ould point out to the Court that none of the allegations set lorth in the infoi mation was material to the ibsuc in the forcible entry case. Had Whakatutu been authorised by Hori Puao to leccivo the rent then the allegations might be material, but Hoi i had 'not given him authority. Mr Nortliorof t had stated in his evidence that the evidence of Whakatutu had not influenced him in any way when committing the accused (Walker and others). Whakatutti's perjuty had injured nobody, nor had it perverted the com so of justice. In conclusion he trusted thr Bench would consider his remarks, and modify the opinion they had ahead y evpn-ssed, and not send the case to the .Supreme Couit where, he was certain, not e\cn a tine bill would bu found. Mr Whitaker thought Mr Hay had said nothing to affect the case, and consequently he did not toel called upon to address their Worships. The Bench said tlicy had looked most carefully thiough the depositions, particularly through the c\idt>nce ot Hoii i'uao and Ani Wliata, as well as through the allegations set forth in the information, before coming into Court. Ha\ing now heard what Mr Hay had said on the matter, they had come to the conclusion that paragraphs 1, 3, 4, .">, 0, 8. !), 10, I*2, were not at all mateiial to the question now before the Court. As forming one whole thing they may be material, but, individually, they wei c not. The paragraphs' which the Bench ' agreed were material wcie 2, 7, and 11. The question laised by Mr Hay Was a legal question, and one to be decided by a snpeiioi Court. Of course, what they said about the immateriality or • materiality of the allegations was simply an expression of 02)inioii. Mr Hay asked that a note of the expression of opinion regarding the immateriality of certain paiagianh be made on the depositions. The evidence having been read over to the accused, lie was formally committed to take his tiial at the next sitting of the (Supreme Court, at Auckland. Mr Whitaker asked to have the bail increased, considering the altered circumstances of the case. The Bench considered as the prisoner had always previously appeared at the required time there was no necessity to enlarge the bail. Accused was accordingly admitted to kail, himself in £200, and two sureties of £100 each.