Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume XIII, Issue 1080, 20 November 1878, Page 7

Resident Magistrate's Court.

[Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M.. and Samuel Johnson Esq., J.P.] Blenheim, Monday, November 18. STRAY HORSE. George Carter was charged with allowing his horse to wander at large m Fearon-Btreet. The defendant pleaded guilty, stating that the horse was m charge of his son, a boy six years of age, who accidentally let the quadruped get away. Defendant was fined 2s 6d, with 5s 66. costs, which he immediately paid. COLLIER V. CARROLL. This was a cattle trespass case, and was adjourned for a week. ROBINSON BROS. V. KITCHEN. This was a claim for £3 11s for goods sold and delivered. There was no defence, and judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs. [Before Samuel Johnson, Esq., J.P.. and William Douslin Esq., J.PJ ' ALLEGED PERJURY. — LITCHFIELD V. NORMANBY. Alexander McKenzie JSormariby, tailor, a bankrupt, was brought before the Court on remand from the previous Friday, on the charge of having committed wilful and corrupt perjury m a statement made on oath concerning his estate and effects before F. J. Litchfield, the trustee. Mr Rogers appeared for the Trustee, and Mr McNab for the accused. Dr Muller, who had been sitting on the Bench, said before the case proceeded he had a remark to make. He had received notice that he was to be called as a witness, and this being the case he should not sit on the Bench during the hearing of the case. Dr Muller then left the Bench, and took his seat at the table, but was not called as a witness. Mr McNab raised an objection to the information—that the 44th and 45th clauses of the Act had not been complied with as to the trustee giving notice within three days to the Registrar of his acceptance of the trusteeship m writing, and that the oath was administered by the trustee when the time had lapsed, and there was therefore a want of competent jurisdiction. He did not, however, press the point. What the words relied on as constituting the offence with which the debtor was charged were not stated m the information, but Mr Rogers expkiaedl^-tfeat thay consisted m the statement made by

the debtor as to the nature of a transaction between him and Mr Esmond Roberts, for whom he had made a suit of clothes and as to where he obtained certain materials. He stated that he got the material from Edwards and Co., and it would be proved that no such material had been obtained there by tne bankrupt at the time alleged. Bankrupt also swore he made the clothes before he filed, which would be disproved. ' ; The accused swore as follows :—" I had an 1.0. U. signed by Roberts for £7. The 1.0. U. was for clothes which. I made since I filed my petition. Mr Roberts has got the 1.0. U. I let him have it back for £6. I got the material for making these clothes m Wellington m part, and part from N. Edwards and Co. of Blenheim. I paid for the material from N. Edwards and Co. I do not know whether I got the other material m Wellington from McDowell or Smith 1 until I look at the invoice." Frederick James Litchfleld deposed : I am a merchant, residing m Blenheim. [Mr R-ngers. here put m evidence a boticedated 17th October which appeared m the Express of the 19th October, of a declaration of bankruptcy by the accused.] Mr M'Nab contended that this was not proper proof of bankruptcy : putting m a single newspaper containing a notice was not enough. The objection was over-ruled. Mr Litchfield resumed : I am Trustee m the estate of A. M. Normanby the debtor named m the notice. As trustee I examined the debtor on oath as to his estate and effects. His evidence was committed to writing. The manuscript produced is his evidence. He was sworn on the Bible, and the oath was administered m the usual form [evidence read] the signature appended to the evidence is m his handwriting. By Mr M'Nab : I am trustee ia the estate and also the prosecutor, and have instituted this prosecution m the cause of commercial morality, and m the interests of the creditors 1 accepted the office of Trustee on the sth November (document produced). I did not signify to the Registrar m writing my acceptance of the office any further or m any other way than m that document. What the debtor said was correctly taken down as nearly as possible. When asked as to where he got certain material from, I do not remember his using the words "I cannot say which until! look at the invoices." I do not believe he said so. What he said appears m the evidence as read. I laid this information on the 13th November instant. Seven days after the examination before me took place. I received information from Mr Roberts that what the accused said aboiit the clothes was un true on the Bth. I knew you were acting for the debtor. I knew you were going to Havelock. I remember Mr Rogers undertaking that no further proceedings should be taken until you returned. lam summoned to the Supreme Court for alleged improperly seizing the debtor's tools of trade and also for taking goods on which the debtors' daughter had a lien for £1 2s 6d for work and labor. I have been acting throughout m the interests of the creditors of whom -1 am one myself. lam not a lawyer and' could not say whether if this prosecution succeeds it will squash the appeal to the Supreme Court. I was aware of Mr Lawrence having obtaiued a jndgment against Normanby. I don't remember calling at Normanby's house that night and asking if he'd " filed." Before any action came off, I called on him and asked him to give me a bill of sale as security for our debt, I said if he did this we would not press him. I was not then aware that he was so near bankruptcy. I did not say " If you'Jl give me security, I'll make it easy for you going through the court." If Miss Normanby states that 1 said this, she will be stating what is untrue. By Mr Rogers : The acceptance by me of the [ office of trustee, and other documents were left m the office. The cases brought against me before the Registrar were dismissed by him. By Mr M'Nab : I did not remove papers from the Court other than those I was authorised to remove. Esmond Roberts, an employee m the Public Works Office deposed : I recently had a suit of clothes made by the accused. I got the trousers on the 14th September, and the coat and vest on the 28th. The suit lam now weariug is the one m question. The pieces of cloth produced are portions of the coat and vest. Paid for them on the 21st October. I gave the debtor an 1.0. U. for them on the 19th October as an acknowledgement of the debt {1.0. U. produced). This was given to Normanby at his request. I paid the money to Normanby. I knew about his bankruptcy. I refused to pay him on the 19th October, as I wished to pay after the first meeting of the creditors. On the 21st October a third person came to me with my 1.0. U., and I went with him to Normanby's shop and 'paid him £Q and got the 1.0. U. for £7 back again. By Mr McNab : I got the clothes on the 14th September, but sent them back to be altered as they did not suit me. I am rather particular as to my clothes. I got them back on the 19th October. I know of my own knowledge that Normanby wanted money to pay wages. George Dobb, m the employ of Messrs Edwards and Co., deposed : The material of which ! Mr Roberts' clothes, which he is now wearing is made is not the same as any m stock kept by the firm. We have had none of that material since the 17th October. There was none of the kind m stock m September. Have had trade dealings with Normanby, and have sold him cloth and twead. [Several pieces of cloth were handed to the witness, who said they were all very like one another, and not unlike the piece m the custody of the Court.] Mr McNab submitted that the case for the. prosecution had altogether broken down. The alleged perjury ought to have been set forth m the information, but this had not been done, and he was left to fight the case m the dark. Would any jury on such evidence find the accused guilty of perjury ? He considered that the trustee did not come into Court with clean hands. When the accused was verging on bankruptcy and going fast down hill Mr Litchfield, the trustee — this apostle of commercial morality — went to him and asked him to give him a bill of sale : m point of fact he asked Normanby to givehim af raudulent preference. Moreover, when _Mr Litchfield knew that an arrangement had TfTTrHTHibwith Mr Rogers that no further pro ;

ceedings should be taken until lie (Mr McNab) came back from Havelock, he nevertheless went and instituted this prosecution, or rather this persecution, so as to "squash" the appeal. This was one of the weakest attempts to estaVlish a case of perjury. that was ever made. Mr Normanby's evidence as given before the trustee was perfectly straightforward, and because he made some slight mistake perhaps as to where a certain piece of cloth came from, and he wap a man, it must be remembered, having large dealings m cloth, which he obtained from various places, it was sought to charge him with wilful and corrupt perjury. It had not been proved that Normanby ha I made the clothes bsfore he filed, but quite the contrary. He submitted that there was no case at all made out, and that the Magistrates would not be warranted m sending the accused for trial, as no jury would be likely to find him guilty. After a shorb consultation, Mr Johnson said the Magistrates were of opinion that a prima facifi case had not been made out, and the accused wonkl be accordingly discharged. The decision appeared to be received with satisfaction by the bystanders m Court, of whom there were rather more than usual, the case evidently possessing much local interest.