ALLEGED DUMMYISM.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLI, Issue 134, 8 June 1907, Page 8

ALLEGED DUMMYISM.

The hearing of teh second, case, against Gibson, was resumed at the S.M. Court this morning. The evidence given before the Land Board by acpused was put in by counsel. Mr McNab likened the procedure or the Land Board to the Inquisition of Spain. Counsel, for the defendant said the Land Act should have been drafted by his friend. Since the- adjournment Mr Stephenson Smith said he ha*! gone into the .whole of the Land Act with reference to grazing. There was only one direct reference to sheep grazing, and that was sub-section 2 of Section 50, the section with the right to graze. Heliad to a certain extent worked out what per head Mr Boyd is paying Mr Gibson for grazing. It would be about 7s per year. About 4s would be a fair price. By Mr McNab: Boyd was paying to Gibson £165, and this was more than an adequate money consideration for the grazing of the sheep on Gibson's Jlease.. This was_£lS..rn<}re..per year ~T" titan the 4s 4d per head suggesfedrby the Court would amount to. JVilliam Armstrong, Chief Draughtsman and Receiver of Land Revenue, vepeated the whole of the evidence given by him in the previous case against Thomas Boyd, and also gave evidence similar to the last witness on the provision made in the Land Act for grazing. He took it that to allow another person to monopolise all the land for grazing purposes amounted to subletting, and under. Section 83, subsection 1, this caj} only be done with the consent of the Laud Board. The Board had not been approached with respect to this privilege in the presnet case. By Mr McNab: The accused Gibson had been an applicant for land put up by the Board, and had been unsuccessful at several bailots. The" Board lmvcle no inquiries as to the qualifications of applicants. Examination continued: Could not say by whom the deposit was paid when application was made. Counsel for the Department asked a question about an application by Mr Boyd for land. ~ Mr McNab said hk friend was rather xmiortunate in his questions. It was all very well for the inquisitorial Department which he represented, but if Air Boyd applied for land that was not evidence against the accused. Kobevt Fleming;, i'amier, residing at Cheviot, repeated his evidence <nven in tne case against Thomas Boyd. By. Mr McNab: He vras not' allowed anything when selling. At the time oi; the purchase there ■■;■;&< no apportionment of rent. "\V:tne-- -was allowed to grazo the .sheep if he <Hd not sell them to Boyd iv lieu of the apportionment.

Examination continued: The consideration would bo worth about £15 on the basis of the Government rent. At.the beginning of September he sold the sheep; The rent had been paid in advance till the end of December. There was a period of two months.intervening, between the sale of the land and the sale of the sheep. An argumnt took place between counsel as to whether Boyd or Gibson was interested in the amount paid for the grazing of witness's sheep. •Thomas Boyd, farmer, living in Kai-kom-a, said he had been there for about 37 years. He owned no leasehold. He had no interest whatever in any leasehold. He had three sons Crown leaseholders.

Mr McNab asked what evidence this was against defendant ? Counsel for the Department said it wa?i his duty to bring out the facts, whether for or against the accused. Mr McNab objected to witness being asked by counsel, after he had given a negative answer, whether he had any interest in leasehold.

Witness, continuing, said he had no interest in Gibson's property. He had not seen a sheep on Gibson's property till last December. He then saw them on the road. Could not say how many sheep were on the property then, but knew that he bought about 630 from Fleming and paid cash. He always paid cash; he found such transactions most profitable. He did not. know if any of the 630 sheep bought from Fleming had been sold. His sons managed the business for him, and they may have sold without li 13. knowledge; but he did not think so. He would guarantee that all the sheep were not on the place at present; but if not sold or strayed, they would be. If Gibson could find the meney the sheep would be his. Even it he could not find the money he would give him some. Eventually he might make him a~ present of them. Gibson was at liberty to sell the sheep. The sheep were shorn in December last. The money received from the ■wool went against the £950 which was paid for the land. He could not say with exactness what he owed Gibson for his services during the years he worked without wages. It would be a considerable amount, and it .would or.lv be a year or two before Gibson would be clear altogether. He remembered meeting Mr "Paine, of 3>alftety 'and Co.', in Kaikoura, and also remembered signing an agreement that he had bought the place for God. Gibson. All stated in the document was quite correct. All the benefits were Gibson's, and the losses witness's. He bought the sheep because they were on the place, and would do better than strange sheep. Gibson, was not charged for his board and lodging, and anything he required witness gave him. Accused was like a son to him. #

Mr McNab objected to the unfairness of questions which were intended to induce witness to incriminate himself. Counsel for the prosecution insisted on asking questions which werenot relevant to the case. The ques-^ tions were indecent, and the examination was worse than the Inquisition of; Spain: Witness, continuing, said his sons' always willingly gave him any assistance he required, but he could not i say which of his sons may have been responsible for the possible transaction previously referred to when he : said some of his sheep might have been ; sold by his sons without his knowledge. ■ At the time of mustering,-besides the accused and the other musterers, there were two of his sons, Tom and Jeremiah, present. Mr McNab again objected to counsel bringing in the sons of Mr Boyd. Their business transactions had nothing to do with the case. He could easily block his friend, but he did an honest defence; and therefore did not wish to do so. Witness was privileged to refuse to answer any question, on the grounds that his statements may be used against himself. Witness said,he gave Gibson about £100 a year for the grazing of the sheep. His Worship said it appeared to him, from the evidence, that Boyd was in partnership with Gibson. Mr McNab said, after this intimation, he would not cross-question the witness. His Worship said there was a great deal of difference between the case of to-day and that of yesterday against Boyd. Mr McNab agreed, but felt sure that a jury would not convict. Accused reserved his defence, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed in one