RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.D

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5398, 3 June 1879, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.D

Feiday, May 30.

(Reforc H. Eyre Kenny, Esq., R.M.) O3JSTKUOXING THE KAILWAY,

Hiraka Tahua, a native, was charged with obstructing the railway line at Takapau, by putting up two wooden posts and a chain, to the danger of the lives of passengers by the railway.

Inspector Scully said he had received instructions from the Government not to press the charge, as there were extenuating circumstances in the case. The prisoner had given notice to the stationmaster of his intention to obstruct the

Kne, and he w"as evidently quite unawa/e of the serious nature of his offence. The land upon which the obstruction Avas placed belonged to the prisoner. ' Mr Kenny told the prisoner that hia conduct had been very bad indeed. By obstructing the railway line he had rendered himself liable to penal servitude fo life. The Government had in withdrawing the charge taken into conside ration his previous good conduct, and also that more violence than was necessary was used by the guard in ejecting him from the train in the morning. He hoped that this would be a warning to the prisoner not to allow his temper to overcome him in the future. CIVIIi CASKS, Judgment for the amounts claimed, with. costs, was given in the following cases: Rnddick v. Hall, claim of £0 ; Combs v. Neagle, claim of £0 15s 5d ; Millikin v. Flanders, claim of £6 10s. THE CHARGE OF WIFE MUtiDEK. Roderick H. M'Lennan was again placed in the dock on a charge of wifemurder.

Elled Alloway, re-called, said she kept the bottle of chloroform which M'Lennan gave to her for the toothache. He asked her to return it, but she persuaded him to leave it with her. It was an ordinary chemist's bottle. She did not remember whether it had a label or not ; it was not marked " poison" at any rate. Emma Agnes Scott, wife of James R. Scott, who recently kept the Masonic Hotel, said she remembered prisoner and his wife coming to the hotel on the 4th or oth of March. On the followin- morning Mrs M'Lennan complained to witness that she was sea-sick. Witness saw her almost every day after that. Some days after she came to the hotel she became worse, and was accustomed to remain iv bed part of the day. She complained of weakness and sickness, and on two occasions witness saw her sick— once she was very bad. On the night before Mrs M'Lennan's death witness saw her lying on the sofa in the sifcfcing-room. She waa then writing. On tho morning of the 27th March, when Mrs M'Lennan died, witness was the first female in the bedroom. It was about 7.30. Prisoner was there, standing with Dr Oaro at the door. She asked M'Lennan why he did not call somebody. He ■ replied that it was his wife's wish that he should not leave her. lii reply to another question he said that she died at 5 o'clock. Witness remarked that it was strauge that he did not call someone, as there were three women — herself, her mother, and her sister — in the house. He said he was too much grieved to think about it. The body was lying in a composed attitude, and witness thought the face looked very nice. Witness then left the room. One day during Mrs M'Lomiau's illness the housemaid called witness into the bedroom to look at the shoots, which had some stains of a yellow color. Witness did noWiotice stains on any other other occasion.

Cross-examined by Mr Lascelless : She did not think that Dr Caro was in the room during the whole of her conversation with prisoner — he was in the room at the commencement of tho conversation. When witness went to see Mrs M'Lennan she generally found her very much flushed. M'Liennan always appeared very kind to his wife — she never heard him say an unkind word to Her.

Martha Clist, sister to Mrs Scott, stated that in March last she lived at the Masonic Hotel. Recollected the day of Mrs M'Lennau's death. At about half-past 9 o'clock on that morning witness went up to Mrs M'Lenuan's room, and saw the body. Did not take anything away from the room. On the day after Mrs M'Lennan was buried witness removed some soiled linen from the deceased's bedroom. It was women's underclothes. There were about seven dozen articles. Noticed nothing remarkable about any of the garments. On the day Mrs M'Lennan died witness saw some medicine bottles in the deceased's room. Did not notice the labels. There was one bottle in the clieffouier cupboard ; it was a small vial labelled "poison." There was M«>u)-:i liint; .-1.-.i-, "v it, but vritnaas did liot. ii itictMvh.ii it was. I 'ill 110 c notice any ciiciiiiist'ii iiaiiic on it. Tho boii.lt; was halt: full, and the contents were like water. It was corked. Witness did not remove the cork. There was in the cheflbnier, besides, half a bottle of brandy and a decanter of wine. "Witness did not remove anything from the cupboard. Witness went again to the cupboard on the day Mrs M'Lennan was buried, afc about 11.30 a.m. The bottle labelled (: poison " was not there then. The brandy and the wine had also been removed.

Cross-examined by Mr Lascolles : Witness had seen the decanter since, but not the wine that had been in it. It was a decanter that was commonly used in ihe bar, and when witness saw it after its removal from the prisoner's room, she did not ask who removed it. Witness was not at all curious to know whether the person who removed the decanter had also seen the bottle labelled "poison." Witness told Mrs Scott several days after about having seen the bottle labelled "poison." Witness thought that what led to her mentioning it to her sister was that witness had heard that M'Lennan was suspected of poisoning his wife. This was about a week or a fortnight after the funeral. Witness heard it from several persons. Could not be certain, but thought Mr Large was the first man. Could not name any other person. Had heard ifc conversed about so frequently that witness could not remember any one person in particular. Had never known another case of a lodger leaving a bottle of poison in the house j still it did not strike witness as being a matter of sufficient importance to require being communicated to the mistress of the house. 1b was a round phial. Could not say what was the length of it. Perhaps it was a little longer than Mr Lascclles' forelinger, but witness could uoi; say what the length of Mr Ladcelle.s : iin^ei.' might bo. Witness took the bottle 'up and looked at it. There was writing on the label, but witness did not read it. Could not swear that the writing was not directions for taking the contents of the bottle.

Lousia Kernick stated that she was housemaid at the Masonic Hotel during the latter part of March.

His Worship at this stage asked Mr Cotterill how many more witnesses ho intended to call.

Mr Cotterill could not exactly say. He was very desirous not to occupy the time of the Court unnecessarily, but he was of course anxious to secure a committal. He might therefore have to call some six or eight, or perhaps more, wit-

His Worship asked whether Mr Lascelles proposed calling any witnesses for the defence.

Mr Lascellea did not think that in a case of such a kind as the present he should call any witnesses. Ilia Worship thought that in that casß there was sufficient evidence adduced to give a pri ma facie case, and unless there was any evidence in particular which Mr Cotterill wished to get down on the depositions, the calling of other witnesses would be unnecessary. Mr Cotterill did not think there was anything he wished to have down on the depositions beyond what was already on them. He could inform Mr Lascelles of what other witnesses he would call at the trial.

His Honor said that perhaps there might be some witnesses who should be examined for fear of accidents.

Mr Cotterill did think there were two witnesses whose evidence he would like to secure, and their examination would probably last a day. Hia Worship said he proposed to sit on the following day up to 1 p.m. and not after.

The case was then adjourned until 10 o'clock tliis morning