POLICE COURT.—Wednesday. [Before T. Beckham, Esq., R.M.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIII, Issue 3162, 5 September 1867, Page 4

POLICE COURT.— Wednesday. [Before T. Beckham, Esq., R.M.]

DRUNKENNESS. William Mitchell, Jane Hughes, Mary Robertson, and an aboriginal native named Wiremu were punished in the usual manner for this offence.

ALLEGED PEEJUEY. George Dunnet appeared in answer to an information laid against him on the previous day by Mark Somerville, charging him with wilful and corrupt perjury, alleged to hare been committed whilst giving evidence on oath before his Honor the Judge of the Insolvency Court. The information in the case was not read. As soon as the case was called, Mr. James Russell, prosecutor's solicitor, rose and said he had to ask the permission of the Court to withdraw the charge in the case, as matters had been so arranged between the partiei that further proceedings were not neoei-

Bary. A letter had been written to his client by Mr. Dunnet which showed that the statement was made in error, and containing an unqualified denial of the same, which was all Mr. Somerville sought to obtain. He would read the letter to the Court :— Auckland, September 4, 1867. Sir, — The statement made by me during my recent examination in the Bankruptcy Court that I had received from you a cheque for £300 for the purpose of obtaining gold for the Bank of Auckland or for any other purpose, was made in error, as I never did reoeive any such cheque from you. I also beg to state that I never paid you a cheque for £SQO, as was alleged by me. I beg to express my sincere regret for having used your name in the manner I did, and for any annoyance these mis-statements may have occasioned you> — Yours obediently, , George Dunnet. To Mark Somerville. As a reason for withdrawing the information, he (prosecutor's solicitor) might mention that the statements were made in error, and under a wrong conviotion, instead of wilfully or corruptly, as was neoessary for the purpose of prosecution in such a case. Still, Mr. Somerville had sustained some injury in consequence' of the error ; his veracity had been brought in question very unpleasantly ; and it was necessary some step should be taken on his part to vindicate that veracity, and clear himself from the stigma implied in the statement referred to. He asked the permission of the Benoh to withdraw from the prosecution, and would leave it for Mr. Dunnet's solicitor to make any explanation of the matter he thought proper. Mr. Macdonald, on behalf of Mr. Dunnet, said he was happy to afford such an explanation in this matter as, while it showed Mr. Somerville's statement that he had never given the cheque, to be presently mentioned, to be perfectly true, and Mr. Dunnet's statement that Mr. Somerville had given such a cheque to be entirely untrue, yet that Mr. Dunnet had spoken in as entire good faith as Mr. Somerville. The facts are these: As was known to the public, Mr. Dunnet had recently been examined in the Bankruptcy Court of this district, when he (Mr. Macdonald) and Mr. Wynn were counsel for Mr. Dunnet. On the first day of that examination Mr, Dunnet had been questioned as to a sum of £4,000 which appeared to his credit in the passbook of his account with the Bank of Auckland. Mr. Dunnet had then frankly stated he could not explain what that entry meant, as he had certainly received no such sum from any one at that date. A Mr. Flint, who had been clerk ito Hunter and Co., was at that time in Court, and, on Mr. Dunnet leaving the witness-box, remarked in the hearing of him (Mr. Macdonald) that Mr. Dunnet "might easily have explained what the £1,000 meant, as it was two cheques of Eyrie's and Somerville's for £500 each, obtained to get the Bank gold ; that, if the pass-book were referred to, | Eyrie's £500 and Somerville's £500 would be [ found on the debit side." The pass-book bore this statement out, and here it should be explained what this getting gold meant, and how it bore on the case. It appeared that the Bank of Auckland had for some time past been in the habit of meeting its exchanges, by getting Mr. Dunnet, and no doubt other friends, to get cheques from gentleman upon other banks in exchange for the marked cheques of Hunter and Co. By this means the Bank of Auckland was prepared with gold to meet the evil day of exchanges literally redeeming its notes from the other banks in their own coin — these transactions being of almost weekly occurrence. He must now ask the Bench to refer back to the examination of Mr. Dunnet in the Bankruptcy Court. On the second day of the examination, Mr. Dunnet, carried away by the evidence of Mr. Flint, and that of the pass-book showing the cheque in favour of Mr. Somerville, explained to the Court that the £1,000 was a gold transaction not affecting his account at all, and consisting of Mr. "Ryrie's cheque of £500 and Mr. Somerville's of £500. As to the first he was right, as to the other wrong. But how came he wrong ? It was thus : in the usual course Mr. Johns had asked of Mr. Dunnet by whose cheque were they to get the gold that week, and the reply had been, " Oh, Eyrie for one, and Mark Somerville for another." Thereon a cheque was drawn by Hunter and Co. in favour of each of the gentlemen named, and marked by the Bank of Auckland. On one of these Mr. Dunnet had undoubtedly obtained Mr. Eyrie's cheque for £500, and with that the Bank had obtained the gold ; but, as transpired on subsequent inquiry, it appeared Mr. Dunnet had not obtained Mr. Somerville's cheque, but the marked cheque had been paid over to another person, whose name it was unnecessary to mention, on whose cheque the £500 gold had been • obtained. ITow, in the examination of Mr. Dunnet the only material point was the explanation of the £1,000 ; and as the explanation would have been quite as satisfactory in saying it came from Eyrie, and Smith, or Brown, as from Somerville, Mr. Dunnet could have had no possible motive in using Mr. Somerville'a name; and it was entirely in unintentional error that Mr. Dunnet/ misled by the bank passbook, and by the assuranoe of Mr. Flint, who was in turn misled by the pass-book, had used Mr. Somerville's name, which no one could regret more than himself. Immediately on the disoovery of his mistake Mr. Dunnet had, in Court, after explaining to one of the opposing counsel his error and its origin, urged him (Mr. Macdonald) to explain the matter at once ; but he, having perhaps less at heart Mr. Somerville's interests than the immediate object of his client's discharge in the Bankruptcy Court, had kept silent on the point. While fully admitting that Mr. Somerville had taken the only step open for the vindication of his veracity, he (Mr. Macdonald) was sure that his statement would enable the Bench to discharge Mr. Dunnet, and express an opinion that he left the Court with a character unblemished by the charge, which he was sure had been reluctantly brought by Mr. Somerville in self defence. The Bench said the case certainly disclosed a novel mode of banking, and Mr. Somerville might well not wish his name mixed up with such a method. If the explanation had been made at once to Mr. Somerville, the unpleasantness of appearing in that Court to-day would not have ensued ; bnt in the absence of such an explanation no other course was left open to Mr. Somerville than the one he had pursued in order to clear himself of the charge. The Court was of course very happy to be able to dismiss the charge, and Mr. Dunnefc would be discharged. The parties then left the Court, and the business terminated.