AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 87, 18 May 1877, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday. May 15, 1877

(Before E. C. Latter, G. H. Saxton, Esqrs, J.P.s, and His Worship the Mayor.)

BREACHES OE CATTLE' TBEsrASS ACT.

The following persons were fined for allowing cattle to wander at large within the Borough of Akaroa: —J. Waeckerle, os and costs; C. Brown, ss. and costs ; A. Rodrigues, 10h. and costs. DENNY V. LE CLERC. A summons was issued in this case against defendant to recover the sum of £25 13s. 6d., being amount alleged to be due for tuition to defendant's children, performed by Mrs. Denny. Mr. Williams appeared for defendant. The plaintiff was not in attendance to press the claim. Mr. Le Clerc stated that he had received a note from Mr. Denny in April last, intimating his intention to withdraw the claim, buthe (defendant) regarded it as an April Fool's joke, as it had actually been received by him prior to the service of the summons. He (defendant) was under the impression that Mr. Denny merely desired the case to be temporarily withdrawn in order to deprive him of the assistance of Mr. Williams in the case. ..The Bench nonsuited plaintiff with costs. PERJURY. Margaret Henderson surrendered to her bail; and was brought up on remand charged with committing wilful and corrupt perjury in the case of Watkins v. Adams, heard in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Akaroa, on Friday, the 4th May. Mr. J. S. Williams appeared for the accused, and made iui apjjlication to the Bench for her to be allowed to sit down, which was granted. ■ Sergeant Ramsay proved to having arrested accused on Monday, the 7th inst., on warrant produced, which was read over to her. The accused made no statement. Cross-examined by Mr. Williams: I did not caution her at the time. It is not usual now to do so. James Hartley, bailiff of the Resident Magistrate's Court, proved to having administered the oath to accused, who was a witness in the civil case of Watkins v. Adams, in the prescribed form. Justin Aylmer, examined by Sergeant Ramsay : I am a Resident Magistrate, residing at Akaroa. I was on the Bench on Friday, the 4th May, in my capacity as Magistrate. There was a civil action in Court that day—Watkins v. Adams—to ecover£4o 13s. 9 L ki I took notes of the revidence.

The witness; here read over the notes of accused's evidence at length. Mr. Williams asked that witness's notes be handed in.

The witness declined to accede to the request, contending that they were his private property, taken for his own guidance to assist him in arriving at a decision in the case, and that he had a perfect right to burn them if he liked.

Mr. Williams held that the notes were the records of the Court, and requested the Bench to take a note of witness's refusal to comply with his request. The Bench took a note of counsel's objection. Witness cross-examination continued : I took notes of plaintiff's evidence. I believe 13s. Od. was paid into Court. The plaintiff enumerated the articles of jewelry supplied, the value of which was stated to be £40 os. 6d. This amount, added to the sum sued for, would bring the original claim up to £81 14s. 3£d. The bill delivered by plaintiff did not show that these articles were abandoned, the items not appearing on the bill. I have nothing on my notes to show that plaintiff had stated that he had divided the cause of action: You raised an objection to my jurisdiction, and I took a note of it, which was—" Mr. Williams objected to the manner in which the cause of action had been divided through plaintiff culling out certain articles of jewelry, amounting to £41 os. 6d., and suing for an amount of £40 13s. 9Ad., being articles of clothing and groceries, which plaintiff supplied to Margaret Henderson, the practice being to sue for the whole amount of goods supplied, less the excess, to bring it under the jurisdiction of the Court." Ido not dispute that the objection was lodged under the 23rd section of the Resident Magistrates Act.

By Sergeant Ramsay : The evidence given by accused was most material to the issue of the case.

Cross-examined by Mr. Williams : It was necessary to cafi accused in support of plaintiff's case, as the defendant denied having received the goods. Mr. Watkins swore she received delivery of the goods, and surely it was necessary to call her. Eliza Kearney was next examined, and her evidence was mainly a repetition of

that given in the civil case, and therefore we deem it quite unnecessary to reproduce it. '

Rebecca Dawber, examined by Sergeant Ramsay.: I am the wife of Robert Dawber, storekeeper, of German. Bay. I know the accused. She has often been to my place, generally in company, with Mrs. Adams. I produce a piece o£ muslin, a necktie, and a small gold locket. Mr. Williams objected to the exhibition of the goods, but was overruled by the Bench.

Witness continued : Mrs. Adams gave me the muslin in my own room on the first week in November. Maggie Henderson was present when Mrs. Adams gave me the articles produced, I believe the muslin measures 12 yards. My husband keeps a general store, and we have no muslin of a similar pattern in stock. I purchased three j r ards of the same description of muslin from Mr. Watkins, and acquainted Mrs. Adams of. the fact. I daresay other storekeepers keep the same pattern. Cross-examined by Mr. Williams: The goods were given to me by Mrs. Adams. The dress was given as a birthday present. My birthday will be in December. Ido not know where the necktie or muslin came from. It was a few days previous to the 21st March that I told Mrs. Adams that Mr. Watkins had some muslin like the pattern she made me a present of. I esteemed Mrs. Adams very much, and I reciprocated her gifts. The accused _had nothing whatever to do with the articles given to me by Mrs. Adams. By Sergeant Ramsay : My reason for purchasing the three yards of muslin was to satisfy myself as to certain rumours, and. to see whether Mr. Watkins had any of the same pattern. Elizabeth Maria Watkins, examined by Sergeant Ramsay: I am the wife of H. G. Watkins, of Akaroa. I have very often seen the accused in my husband's store. I sold to her on the 23rd of August 12 yards of muslin, a fac simile of the pattern produced. I supplied a black petticoat, value 455,, to the accused on the 12th of July. Cross-examined by Mr. Williams: I will not swear positively that the piece of muslin produced is the same I supplied to accused, but I believe it is. I think it is the only pattern of that description of muslin in-Akaroa. I do not think it possible to get another piece like it in Akaroa. We did not buy , all the manufacturer made, bnt purchased the last piece the firm had in stock. I saw my husband supply one black satin petticoat to Margaret. Mrs. Adams was not present. Mrs. Adams personally took delivery of the petticoat.on May 8, the date on which it was 'first supplied, but she was not present when it was taken away again. There is only one petticoat charged, and there was only one taken away by the accused. By Sergeant Ramsay: I understood from Margaret that the petticoat was for Mrs. Adams. It was taken to Mrs. Adams, and I had'no doubt in my mind that it was for Mrs. Adams.

Cross-examined by Mr. Williams : The accused instructed me to book the goods to her " ma." Wo have been in the habit of booking all goods obtained for Mrs. Adams to Mr. Adams. I do know that Mrs. Adams is not accused's mother. At the time I booked the goods I was not instructed to keep two separate accounts.

Stephen Watkins swore to having seen Margaret Henderson several times in his brother's store, and on one occasion he saw her take away a parcel of merino. The Court then adjourned at 4 p.m., till the following morning at 10 o'clock.

Wednesday, May 16,

The case against Margaret Henderson was resumed, and the first witness called was

H. G. Watkins, who was examined by Sergeant Ramsay: I produce my daybook and ledger, and turning to the 12th July, I find I supplied with a black satin petticoat and other things, for Mrs. Adams. She asked me if I had sold the petticoat her " ma " had taken home with her. I replied, "No." She then said " well. 'ma ' wants it." I understood her "ma" to mean Mrs. Adams. She took the petticoat away with her on the 12th July. On the 14th July I delivered to accused a tahner cape, of a peculiar shape, and other articles. On the 29th July I supplied accused with 16 yards of alpacca. On the 19th August, 8£ yards French merino, together with 25| yards of black velvet ribbon, and 7 yxirds of grey linen. On the 23rd there are several items. I find an entry of 12 yai'ds of muslin. I have a pattern of it in my pocket. I produce it. I have inquired at all the stores in Akaroa, and find there is none of a similar pattern in stock. The whole of the goods were supplied to accused by me, or in my presence. They were not paid for at the time, but booked to Mr. Adams.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wiliams : The total debit in my ledger against Mr. Adamsjjamounts to £81 odd I have nothing debited" against Mr. Adams except the £40 I recently sued him for. The articles contained in the account which I. sued for appears in different parts of my ledger, pages 34 and 355. I cannot show a distinct account for the £40 13s. 9J-d, bill. I served the petticoat to the accused. She did not tell me to whom it was to be booked. My wife Avas present. Accused came to my store alone. On August 1, I supplied four pictures. The pictures were booked to Mr. Adams, but not charged in the account sued for. The petticoat was seen by Mrs. Adams prior to accused taking it away. I do not purchase goods from Hobday and Joblin. I saw part of the -Stock that firm brought down for sale. Idecline to swear that they had not a similar pattern of muslin. It is quite possible, but not probable, for other firms to have the same pattern in stock. This was the case. Mr. Williams would like to learn from the Bench whether they had made up their minds, to , commit. If so, there would be no- use of his addressing them. Possibly the Bench would not care to take upon themselves the responsibility of deciding the case. The Bench retired for a quarter of an hour to consider their decision, and on returning into Court, committed the accused to take her trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court. Bail to the extent of £200 would lie taken. Ellen Adams was then charged with committing wilful and corrupt perjury as a witness in the same case. Sergeant Ramsay proved the arrest, and James Hartley the administration of the oath. Justin Aylmer produced the notes taken by him at the hearing of the civil case.

The accused said while giving evidence— " I never saw a black petticoat'at Watkin's. If Mr. Watkins has sworn that I saw or bought one at his store, he has sworn, falsely. I knovv Mrs. or Miss Kearney,' Mr. Breitmeyer, and Mr. Dawber. I never placed anything in their hands for sale." The defendant's counsel made an application to the Bench for an hour's ad-; iournment to consult his clients as to wether they would come into Court and acknowledge that they had committed perjury. Counsel wished the Bench to pledge themselves to overlook the perjury if the witnesses would return to Court and purge the perjury. Mr. Williams took exception to that evidence, on the ground that accused was not bound by his representation. In the case of a person making a confession* it is usual to caution the accused beforehand,- and to take down the statement in writing, to be given for or against the person at the trial. No caution was administered, The Bench held that as it was not likely to lead to further evidence, it would be no use taking it down, and that it was not fair to entertain it to.the prejudice of the accused.

Witness continued : Accused stated that Maggie had not been out of her sight for several months, and that it was not possible' for her to have got the goods without her knowledge. Cross-examined by Mr. Williams: The accused gave her evidence in a clear and distinct manner, and did not in the least exhibit any hesitation. I remarked no sign of fear about her. The black petticoat, as far as the evidence went, referred to the one supplied on the 12th July. Eliza Kearney: I have never received goods directly from Mrs. Adams to sell, but have from Maggie Henderson on her behalf. [Witness here read over the articles.] Maggie told me to sell the goods for her " ma," at the same time remarking that a3 they were going into mourning they would not require the colored merino. I. disposed of some of the articles, part of the proceeds I placed to the credit of Mrs. Adam's account, and handed the balance to Maggie for : Mrs. Adams; Maggie was always unaccompanied by Mrs. Adams when she came to my house.

Cross-exmained by Mr. Williams: I have not had business transactions personally with Mrs. Adams for some years. All transactions were with Maggie Henderson. I had no direct authority from Mrs Adams to charge the goods to her. " I had ouly the bare word of Maggie Henderson, which I considered quite sufficient. I never delivered an account personally tc Mrs. Adams, but I am certain she must have received it through Maggie. Rebecca Dawber gave' similar evidence given by her in the previous case. Elizabeth Maria Watkins:' lam the wife of H. G. Watkins.—On May 8 Mrs. Adams called at our store, inspected a black satin petticoat, and took it home with her. The petticoat was returned, and Maggie called for it again on the 12th July. Cross-examined by Mr. Williams: Maggie told me that Mrs. Adams sent her for the petticoat. I did not hear Mrs. Adams nstract her to bring the petticoat. Maggie told me to book the goods to her " ma," meaning Mrs. Adams. I decline to answer whether Mrs. Adam's statement in Court on the 4th hist, that she did not see a petticoat in our store on the 12 th July was correct or not. By Sergeant Ramsay : Mrs. Adams had given me authority in the presence of my husband, prior to the currency of the bill sued for, to supply Maggie Henderson with

goods. H. G. Watkins: There is an entry in my day book on the 12th July last of a black satin petticoat. It was supplied to Margaret on accused's account. It had been seen by Mrs. Adams in my store previously and taken away by her, and returned. [Witness here enumerated the dates and the articles supplied, as in the previous case.] Cross-examined by Mr. Williams : I do not remember stating in the civil case that I supplied the petticoat to Mrs. Adams. If I stated so, it would have been incorrect If Mrs. Adams swore that I did not supply any of the articles mentioned in the bill to her personally, she said truly. I supplied nothing to Mrs. Adams.

Mr. Williams took exception to the memos being passed by the Resident Magistrate to the Sergeant, as he considered that it was rather hard to be compelled to fight three or four persons.

Mr. Aylmer: I am the prosecutor in the case, having ordered the indictment. Mr. Williams : Then you ought to be standing in the place of Sergeant Ramsay as prpsecutor.

George Scarbrough: I am a justice of the peace of the Colony of New Zealand. I was on the Bench on Friday, the 4th inst., during the hearing of the case of Watkins v. Adams. I made a few notes of the evidence for my own private use. If the reference to the black petticoat came out in cross-examination I have not got a note of it. To the best of my belief accused said that she did not get a black satin petticoat. My memory has not been refreshed by the paper. I had enough of the.case without reading the report in the Akaroa Mail. 1 heard Mrs. Adams say that she knew Mr. Breitmeyer, of German Bay, and that she never took any goods to him to be disposed of. She said that she knew Mr. Dawber. I heard Mrs. Adams say that Maggie had not been out of her sight for four or five months, and that it would be impossible for her to have obtained those goods at Watkins' without her knowledge.

Cross-examined by Mr. Williams: My memory is as, good as my notes. I am giving'my evidence from memory. To the best of my memory, accused did not qualify her statement that Maggie had not been out of her sight since the last settlement of the bill with Mr. Watkins. I believe I heard all the evidence. If Mrs. Adams said that Mr. Watkins did not supply her with a petticoat on the 12th July, her statement would be correct with that given in evidence by her. > I consider Mrs. Adams gave her evidence in a straightforward maimer and without any hesitation, but I decline to say that she believed that she was stating the truth. lam not aware whether she attempted to conceal anything. By Sergeant Ramsay : From the cvi dencegivenby accused and other witnesses, I, with the Resident Magistrate, considered it necessary to order the prosecution for perjury. Mr. Williams raised an objection to Mr. Scarbrough sitting on the Bench since he was called as a witness. He held that the clerk of the Bench should have taken the evidence. This was the case.

Mr. Williams, in an able speech, ad dressed the Bench in defence of the accused, and reviewed the evidence at somelength.

An adjournment was'here made for ten minutes.

The Bench, on returning into Court, said that they had given the case most careful consideration, which was of the most painful nature. Their duty was clear. The accused would be committed to take her trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court, to be held in Christchurch. Their decision was arrived at on the evidence, but the points of law raised by Mr. Williams would no doubt be considered upon the accused's trial.

Mr. Williams requested permission to cite authorities in suppoit of his objection against a Magistrate giving evidence, and at the same time adjudicating.

The Bench remarked that although Mr. Scarbrough was sitting on the Bench, he had hot interfered with the verdict.

Mr. Williams : But he was present in the side room during your deliberation.

The Bench : Quite right. But there were two other justices—Mr. Saxton and Mr. Latter. The Bench would have no objection to hearing the authorities read, as they might be of use in other proceedings.

Mr. Williams here read extracts from Taylor on evidence.

The Bench: Your citation might have weight, if only two Justices had been sitting. The accused was then cautioned in the usual way, and reserved her defence. Bail was allowed in the same amount as in the previous case. The Bench directed all the witnesses in this case to be in attendance on Friday (this day) to be bound over to appear at the Supreme Court. The Court then adjourned.