At the City Police Court last Friday, before Messrs J. Tl. Thomson, J. P. Jones, Colin Allan, and W. Wright, J.P.s, (lenrge Wallace was charged by Alexander Campbell with having, on April 30 and May 1), 1839, committed wilful and corrupt perjury iu statements made in his examinations before John Logan and William Langlanda, Justices of the Peace, during the hearing of a charge of cattle-stealing preferred against Alexander Campbell. Mr Solomon appeared on behalf of the prosecutor ; Mr Macdonald for accused. John Logan, Justice of the Peace, recalled, gave formal evidence. Henry W. Ralfe, clerk of the Court, also cave formal evidence, and produced the depositions. Accused, in the depositions, denied having bad any joint partnership dealings in cattle with Campbell, and he denied having ev-r put cattle in for sale in conjunction with
Campbell. Alexander Campbell, cattle-dealer, said he was prosecuted by Wallace for stealing a ■corr. While giving evidence accused denied having had any dealings in partnership iu cattle with witness. That statement was untrue, accused and witness having been in partnership for some time, dividing the profits. Sometimes accused got the money and sometimes witness. Witness would sometimes put cattle in for sale, sometimes accused, and sometimes both would do so. No written partnership agreement was m ule; the agreement was made verbally. One day witness and accused went to a Cu[ J tain Curie’s place, to look at some cows ana bulls. They did not buy themonthatday, but witness wentbacksomc dayslater, and bought them. The same proceedings took place regarding transactions with a Mr Walker. Accused bought some cows from a Mr Bayley, and told witness subsequently that they (meaning witness and accused) would have to lift the rest next week. Witness remembered selling a cow at auction to a man named Bennett. He bought the cow bimself along with another cow, and after the sale accused got the money, witness not being present. A man named Rutherford was present at the sale, whick took place on February 19. Before witness was charged with stealing Wallace’s cow he had some transactions with the Farmers’ Agency Company. Witness bought some heifers from the Peninsula, and they were sold by Mr Grindley, but accused got the money— Ll2 7s 2d. Wallace sold some lambs the same day, and the two lots were entered as “cattle and lambs.” Sometimes witness would drive cattle to the saleyards, and sometimes accused would do so, while they sometimes drove the cattle together. That was the general custom. Mr Macdonald objected to this general evidence. How could he cross-examine on such evidence, where nr specific transactions were mentioned ? Mr Solomon said Mr Macdonald had already objected several times. How could he ask specific questions as to a general custom ?
Mr Thomson : Well, we have had specific statements as to transactions, Mr Solomon, Witness has mentioned them in hia evidence.
Witness (to Mr Macdonald): The partner ship was made at the salcyards on September I. No one else was present but himself and accused, and no written agreement was made. Accused asked witness if he could put in LSO with hia (accused's) LSO ; and witness replying “ \*es,” that was all the conversation Mr Macdonald: Don't look into Mr Solomon’s face before you answer my questions. Just look at me.
Witness (continuing) said the money was never paid into a joint account, They simply bought together, although witness bought cattle wlieu accused was not present, as did accused when witness was not present. A squaring up between witness and accused took place on October 1, but the accounts were not properly made up, and no arrangement was oome to between the parties. Accused was satisfied at the arrangements made, but witness was not satisfied. When tl.s cattle were obtained from Curie witness did pot know who entered thorn at the saleyards, or who got the money. Witness went by himself to Walker and bought nine or ten heifers from him. He took them to the yards, but did not remember who entered them, or who got the money, JJither he or Wallace got the money, but witness could not swear who the party was.
The cow that witness bought at Henley was put up at auction, and Wallace got the money from the Mutual Agency Company. Two cows were also sold by the same company in the yards—one to Bennett and one to Atkinson—and accused got tiie money. Witness remembered other business transactions with accused. Witness produced a book, and was turning over the leaves when Mr Macdonald said ; “ Put away that book, air!
Mr Solomon : Don’t speak to the man as though he were a criminal.
Mr Macdonald : My learned friend knows well enough that what the witness is doing is Wrong. Mr i'noinsoa : It you were not to talk back to one another wo should get on with the case much quicker. Witness (continuing) said that they bad bought catttle at Goodwood and steers at Waikouaiti, Witness brought the Goodwood cattle to the yards, and Mr Macdonald asked their Worships to stop the witness from looking at his book. Mr Solomon said the witness was only refreshing bis memory. Witness said that at Waikouaiti accused paid LI deposit, and witness paid Lo ISa and took the cattle away. Wallace did not give witness Lu to pay the owner when the cattle were taken away; witness paid the money out of his own pocket. Ho did not know who got the proceeds of the sale of these cattle. On several occasions witness and accused had dealings in cattle togetner, but when the cattle were disposed of privately witness did not get the money ; at least he did not remember doing so. Mr Solomon wanted to know if his learned friend intended to go into every transaction between accused aud witness, Mr Macdonald : I have a perfect right to ask these questions—l know what lam about. 1 want to hear the particulars of this wonderful partnership. 1 must say Mr Solomon : We don’t want a speech from Mr Macdonald at this stage. Mr Thomson : I am not going to sit on this Bench to hear barneying between two solicitors when it does not affect the case at all. If Mr Solomon and Mr Macdonald want to argue the case out betw e„-n themselves, wo will adjourn it for a week. William Langlands (recalled) said he considered the depositions were taken down in writing when the statements were made. John Logan (recalled) gave corroborative evidence.
Albert Walker, dairy farmer, residing at West Harbor, said Wallace and Campbell came to his place about the beeinning of the year and spake about some 3'oung stock. While Campbell was down among the cattle Wallace introduced himself to witness as Campbell’s partner, and both made offers for dealing. To Mr Macdonald : Wallace, when introducing himself, said ; “ I’m Campbell’s partner.” Witness thought that was all the conversation that took place. Campbell returned a few days afterwards and bought the heifers, for which he believed a receipt was given. He could not give particulars as to the contents of the rceeipt; in fact ho could not state that a receipt was given, James Bailey, a farmer residing on the Peninsula, said Wallace and Campbell came to his place about the end of last February to purchase cattle from him. Wallace came and bought the cattle, and told witness that Campbell would lift them that day next week. Then a further conversation
Mr Macdonald objected to the statements going down in tho form they were. Mr Solomon had interrupted just as the witness was going to say something.
Mr Solomon ; I did not. Mr Macdonald : Yes, you did ; and I object to it. Mr Thomson: It’s all very well your objecting, Mr Macdonald, hut yon never state what you object to. You arc simply trying to humbug us.
Mr Macdonald : I am not trying to humbug your Worships, hut I object to these statements going down. It Wus
arranged Mr Thomson : I don't want a lecture from you. If yon object to these statements, on what grounds do you object? Mr Macdonald : At the beginning of the case it was agreed —— Mr Thomson ; That’s nothing. What do yon object to ? Mr Macdonald : I was just telling you. Mr Thomson : Yon were not.
Witness continued his evidence, and in cross-examination said that Campbell was more like a man employed by accused than a partner. There wus no furtuer conversation, although they came together.
Mr Solomon asked whether the statement made by accused that he and Campbell wore in company was made when they both came ?
Witness: It was made when they weie together. Mr Macdonald ; Ah, 1 did not want to entrap you. You never said that until Mr Solomon put the question to you. You were too sharp for that. Witness : Ah I I'm good enough for you, at any rate.
Aichibald Rutherford, farmer, residing at Kaikorai, said that sometimes ono would take the sales of cattle, and sometimes tho other. Both seemed to be satisfied. Anyone could go to tbc yards and buy off one or the other. In a conversation which witness had with accused, the latter said they (meaning himself and Campbell) were mates, and that ho thought they would get on much better. The cattle sold at tho yards belonged, witness believed, to both men, and no distinction was mode. To Mr Macdonald: On one occasion four cattle were put in witness’s yard ; and they were taken away by Campbell. He had applied to Wallace for payment, and had been told something. Mr Solomon objected to the style o£ questioning adopted by his learned friend, Mr Macdonald replied that lie did not want to carry on his cross-examination at Mr Salomon’s dictation.
Mr Solomon thought that in common courtesy
Mr Macdonald: Oh, I don’t want you to talk to me about courtesy. My friend’s taken up a position that he can’t sustain. Mr Solomon : I must say that when I interrupt with legitimate objections Mr Macdonald’s remarks arc v«ry impertinent and rude. Mr Thomson remarked that if counsel wished to “have it out” the Bench would grant them an adjournment. Witness said that he had been paid for grazing the cows. Henry Corish Bennett said he thought the parties were partners from their general method of conducting business. He frequently saw accused and Campbell together at the saleyards. If he bought from one of them he considered that they were partners, but he did not know that they were. On one occasion Wallace said Campbell always wanted to have a “ squaring up,” as if lie were suspicious. Tho cow which was stob n witness bought from Campbell. On one occasion witness bought a cow for L 3, and Rutherford came up and made some remark about the quality of the cow. Campbell and Wallace then blackguarded him for interfering with their sale.—To Mr Macdonald: Witness gave evidence in the other case, ami an information had since been laid against him for perjury by accused. In reply to a question by Mr Macdonald, witness said; You have interfered with my character very much between tho lot of you —Mr Macdonald, and a pair of rogues. I wish they had the cow and tho money too. The next time I give evidence a policeman will have to come for me.
Mr Solomon : I must say the man deserves some sympathy in the matter. Ho subsequently said that the witness gave his evidence on April 30, and the information against him was laid on the Bth of July. Witness stated that that was so. He also said: One scoundrel has got the cow and the other has got the money, or I should not have been here to-day. Upon concluding his evidence, the witness was asked to sign the written depositions which had been taken down by the clerk of the Court. He, however, objected, and said : I am not going to sign »ny more perjuries. They are a d d pair ot rogues—that’s plain, Mr Solomon (pointing to the depositions): Are you going to sign that or not ? Witness (after a moment’s reflection): I’ll sign it, but I may bo signing my death warrant. —(Loud laughter, in which the Bench joined.)
T. Wentworth Taylor (in the employ of the Mutual Agency Company), K. F. Palmer (in the same employ), and H. C. Campbell also gave evidence tending to show that the
prosecutor and .accused were jointly inte rested in cattle transactions.
The case for the , prosecution having closed, Mr Macdonald applied for and obtained an adjournment for a week, accused being admitted to bail in his own rccogni sance of L 25, and one surety of L 25 The hearing of the charge of perjury preferred against H. C. Bennett was adjourned till Thursday.
Permanent link to this item
ALLEGED PERJURY., Evening Star, Issue 7971, 29 July 1889
ALLEGED PERJURY. Evening Star, Issue 7971, 29 July 1889
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.