DISTRICT COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 3122, 13 May 1892, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Thursday, Ma? 12th, 1892. (Before H's Honor Judge Kettle.) The Court sat at 10 a.m. PEFJURY.

Anton Hurlimann was charged with having on Ist April, 1892, committed wilful and corrupt perjury in the Besident Magistrate's Court, Hawera. Mr Caplen appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Welsh defended prisoner, who pleaded not guilty.

The following jury was empanelled : W. H. Reid, B. Chestnut, C. W. Brotdbent, A. J. Kirk (foreman), S. Dixon, F. W. Cudby, F. Cowein, D. MoL'Dowie, T. L. Joll, P. Peterson, J. H* Brown, W. Stoddart.

Both sides freely exercised the right of challenge, six being challenged by the Crown and six by the defenoe.

The indiotme'nt oontained four counts, perjury being assigned (1) on the statement by accused that be had not signed a promissory note which formed the eabjeot of aotion in Pfneger v. Hurlimann ; (2)

tbat be always signed his name with two ns; (3) that be never borrowed any znoney from Pfneger ; (4) that be never at any time gave Ffneger security over a certain horse to cover his indebtedness to Pfoeger. The evidence for the prosecution was practically the same bb in tbe Resident Magistrate's Court, Alfred Trimble, and William Alfred Parkinson being called to prove that defendant made the statements on which perjury was charged; and Pfneger, R. S. Maofarland, E.G. Meredith, and P. Dolan being called to prove the falsity of tbe statements ; and a number of documents being also relied upon Tbe principal new point was that on Ist April tbe morning of the bearing of tbe case in which it was alleged that be committed the perjury defendant went to Mr. Meredith and asked him if he was coming to oourt as a witness in the case. Meredith said no he knew nothing of tbere being ft court case. After this accused Bwore that Meredith had never drawn up any paper between accused and Pfneger; whereas Meredith now swore tbat be did draw up such a paper and tbat accused signed it in bis presence. For the defence accused himself was examined. He stated tbat be did borrow money from Pfneger, and gave particulars of accounts between them. He said be borrowed £7 15s from him not to pay for property, but to pay deposit on County Council tenders, but had repaid it; that he bad given Beonrity over a horse for this; that Meredith had drawn np an agreement and he had signed it. But accused said he was confused when giving his evidence, and the main thing in bis mind was tbe promissory note. After tbe cass was over be looked up his books and found that he had been mistaken on certain points in his evidenoe. He still persisted in his denial that be had given tbe promissory note, and said he bad never seen or known of Bach a

thing as a promissory note until be was sued on this one, which he had not signed. In cross-examination it oame out that be had signed another promissory note in favor of Mr. Dolan sometime previously to this note transaction. Aooused's examination and cross-

examination was very long. J. W- Hirst deposed that defendant and another bad paid £2 deposited on contract, also that the defendant said he had borrowed money from Ffneger. Mr. Welsh in addressing the jury, pointed out that it was necessary in order to sustain the obarge, to prove to the jury beyond all reasonable doubt, that aconaed knowingly and wilfully stated wfcat he knew to be untrue ; and be urged that though accused in bis evidence, in respect of which perjury was charged as well as that now given, had shown many weaknesses and inaccuracies, he had not wilfully lied, but had stated tbat wbiob be beHeved at tbe time to bo true. Other* wise be would have certainly availed himself of tbe opportunity frequently given him by the magistrate to re tire from the statements be bad made. When the magistrate told him be " would give him every chance as a foreigner,"it was evident His Worship thought the man' was honestly making a mistake, or be would not have given him " a chance," because tbat would have been departing from bis duty if he thought the man was commiting perjury. Mr. Caplen referred to various points in tbe evidence against prisoner, and said, while admitting tbat the defendant was entitled to the benefit of a doubt, tbe jury bad, the duty resting on them of returning' a verdiot of guilty if they believed tbe prisoner guilty. Tbe Judge explained tbe various counts in tbe indictment, and referred to the evidence. He pointed out tbe improbabilty that Pfoger would forge a promissory note payable after six months, put it in tbe bank for collection, and then come to court and support it by perjury. Tbat was tbe. alternative from accused being guilty. . Tbe question was — did the evidence satisfy tbem as to bis guilt ? He was entitled to tbe benefit of; the doubt, but the doubt must not be fanciful, but an honest substantial doubt as to tbe force of tbe evidence. He went over tbe evidence, and said it was a matter for tbe jury to decide. If they thought accused was guilty be was certain they would not hesitate to say bo. It was a matter for regret that so much loose swearing was indulged in in the courts, and a stop must be put to it. If tbe jury thought the perjury had been committed by accused they would be good enough to say so without considering the consequence!.

After quarter of an hour's absence the jury returned a verdiot of " guilty " on all counts, but recommended prisoner to mercy 00 account of bis being a foreigner, and not being an expert in money matters.

His Honor said prisoner had been convicted on the* dearest possible evidence, and had been long enough in the colony to ;know its laws.! He would have passd a muoh heavier sentence, but for the recommendation of the jury to which he should give efieoj. The sentence, which he considered exceedingly light, would be nine months' imprisonment with hard labor.

Mr. Welsh applied th»t prisoner bo allowed the benefit of tbe Probation Ac*, for the sake of his wife and child.

His Honor thought it .was not a oase to which that Act was intended to apply. No doubt the sentence would press more heavily upon prisoner's family than upon himself, but that bad boon considered already. He took all such matters into consideration. He was very sorry for the wife,, but people were too apt to come into court and support what they considered thetr rights by loose swearing, and it was time a stop was pot to it. GUNGALL V. MURPHY AMD ANOTBEB. Aotion to recover damages for assault. Mr. Hutchison for plaintiff; Mr. Mat* thews for defendant. Complainant did not appear and the oase was struck out. ' BUOKLAHD T. HAJOB. Claim for £100 for alleged illegal issue of search warrant.

Mr. Barton for plaintiff; Mr. Caplen for defendant.

Defendant had filed a notice objeotipg to the case being heard in tbe District Court, and this, under the Justices of the Peaoe Act, ousted the jurisdiction of the court. Case struck out. Mr. Caplen, for defendant, mentioned the ouestion of costs.

The Court said that as it bad no jurisdiction to proceed it could not deal with (he costs. The case mast bo simply struck out.