THE HUTT TARRING CASE.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 5302, 24 September 1885, Page 2

THE HUTT TARRING CASE.

At the Magistrate's Court this morning Saml. Waters appeared to answer a summons granted on an information sworn by Sydney Nimmo Muir for having committed wilful and corrupt perjury while giving evidence in the Hutt tarring case, in which Jas. Walden is charged with having assaulted S. N. Muir. The information set T1 forth that defendant committed perjury in that he had not lately purchased handcuffs, or that he had not lately given accused (Jas. Walden) a pair of handcuffs since 1858. E. Shaw appeared in support of the information on behalf of W. T.L. Travers, and Mr Gully for the defence. Before the proceedings commenced Mr Travers said he desired to apologise to his worship for what had fallen from him on the previous day during the hearing of the assault case of Muir v. Walden. He wished to state that he sincerely regretted any portion he had taken in the discreditable proceedings of yesterday. It was quite true that he lost his temper, and the irregularity of which he had been guilty was quite unjustifiable in a Court of Justice He trusted his Worship would accept his apology. Mr Wardell replied that he received the statement of Mr Travers with great satisfaction. He was sure that Mr Travers would see that he had been in fault. Evidence was taken that Connor, employed in the store of Dawson and Co., ironmongers, and gave evidence to the effect that Walden, accused of assaulting Muir, had purchased a pair of handcuffs some time in August.. Waters was present when the sale took place, and the handcuffs were booked to him. Stephen Fisher, another employee in the same firm, deposed that he saw Waters with what he believed to be a pair of handcuffs in the office one day last month. He would not swear they were handcuffs. They were steel instruments, and like the handcuffs produced. Could not say whether he saw handcuffs in Waters's possession before the assault or not. Defendant said to witness as he passed him "Lst's try them on." Defendant was addressing witness. This closed the case for the prosecution, and in reply to Mr Gully the bench thought there was a case to answer, upon which Gully applied for a remand until Friday, when he would be in a position to close defendant's case. The remand was granted.