OTAGO.

Press, Volume IX, Issue 1095, 12 May 1866, Page 5

OTAGO.

CHABGE OP PEBJTJBT AGAINST A BABBISTEB. The " Daily Times" of the 9th and 10th inst. are almost entirely occupied with a very full report of a charge of perjury brought against Mr. Barton, the barrister, by Mr. J. tire Russell :— The information (as stated in the summons) charged that " you, on the 15th day of March, 1866, at Dunedin aforesaid, in the colony aforesaid, falsely, wickedly, wilfully, and corruptly did commit wilful and corrupt perjury in an affidavit sworn in a certain matter then pending in the Supreme Court of New Zealand, when you swore ' that in or about the month of June, 1864, James Ure Russell especially agreed with mc to allow mc as my fee as counsel for attending at the Waste Lands Board, at the meetings of the said Board held for the settlement of boundaries of the runs in the province of Otago, the sum of £50 for my services on his behalf in respect of the Mavora station. That the said James Ure Russell frequently expressed himself well satisfied with the resulte obtained at the said several meetings of the Waste Lands Board, and I often requested of him payment of the £50 which he always admitted to be due and often promised to pay, and my firm afterwards received £100 from the said James Ure Bussell, part of which was applied in payment of said £50.' And on the twentyeighth day of the said month of March, at Dunedin aforesaid, in the colony aforesaid, falsely, wickedly, wilfully, and corruptly another affidavit swore in the matter aforesaid when, after stating ' that I have read a copy of the affidavit of Hfnry Smythiee sworn herein on the 26th day of March. 1866,' you swore, 'I positively deny the statement made in the eighth paragraph of the said affidavit, , and ' that the said James Ure Bueseli did not upon receipt of that letter or at any other time come to mc with the said Henry Smythiee and reiterate and declare in the most positive way, or at all, that be would not allow the sum of £40 odd in the said letter mentioned as appropriated to u>e ;' against the peace of Oar Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity, and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided."

The Magistrates upon the Bench were the Hon. A. B. C. Strode, E.M.; John Gillies, Esq., R,M.; and Charles Logic, Esq., J. P. Mr. W. L. Bees appeared for the prosecution; and Mr. James Smith (with him, Mr. James Macassey) for the defendant.

The question involved in the case was, whether Mr. Bussell did or did not promise to pay Mr. Barton £50 for his professional services with respect to the settlement of the boundaries of the runs referred to. Mr. Russell was called as a witness, and positively denied having made any such promise as etated by Mr. Barton in his affidavit. Several other witnesses were examined to prove the dates of various interviews between Mr. Russell and Mr. Barton, and for the defence Mr. Bryan, who had been clerk to Mr. Barton, was called to show how the account for £40 came to be sent in, which he stated he drew up himself without the knowledge of Mr. Barton, who as soon as he heard of it declared that it was a mistake, and that Mr. Russell had agreed to pay him £50.

At the conclusion of the case, which lasted two days, the Magistrates retired, and were out of Court half-an-hour; on their return, Mr Strode read the following decision :-— We have carefully considered the evidence adduced in this case. As far as the prosecutor and the defendant are concerned, their statements are opposed to each other —it is oath against oath; aud as it is necessary that perjury should be made out by two witnesses, or by one witness and some corroborative documentor circumstance in addition, we consider that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant us in sending the case for trial. The only witness called by the prosecution in support of the charge—in addition to the prosecutor himself—was Mr. Smythies, whose testimony does not contradict the sworn statement x>f the defendant on the material points; and the prosecution have failed to pro-' duce any corroborative document or circumstance in addition to the evidence of the prosecutor. For these reasons we dismiss *Cae information, and the accused is,