RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IV, Issue 59, 8 February 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

'.',..; .".,.'" YESTERDAY. • : V-Beforerß Ward Esq. K. M*) The Perjury Case. BOYD V. OOLEMAN. Accused Committed for Trial. ■The'" 1 first witness for the prosecution,' Mr HauTtain,' on being sworn stated :— Remembered the 20th of December; was present m. Court when the civil action G-. Boyd v. M. F. Oolemhn was heard and judgment given for plaintiff; recollected the : defence, which went to show that the LlO given to her by Boyd was a free gift m recognition of kindness received by him at, the hands of her late husband ; she stated that the cheque was given on a Saturday or Sunday, and that the promissory n,pte was given on the Tuesday following 1 , the cheque being" cashed on the Monday.. Owirtgl to it having : been spread over the.tpwn; by.jißoyd that he had giyen^Mrs Coleman; the money, it suggested that she give Boyd a promissory note for tfie amount, to prevent any more? j shejilso deposed that hs did . not -want toxakejfcat; first, but subsequently did so : ; Relieved she said Mr Goodison was^present. H. Grafi .ren»emberedothe]2oth December, 1883 ; heard the case Boyd v. C'olcnian. Mrs. Coleman \was -called as a witness m her own defence. She said that at the interview with Bovd it was suggested that a promissory note should ;be given for LlO, but that- the amount should still be considered a free gift. She cashed -the cheque a day or two previous to the promissory note being, ;gh en, and she said that the promissory note was given to stop people talking, and that Boyd was not to present it for. payment ; believed she stated Mr Goodison was present, also Mrs Boyd when the cheque was given ; heard her state thai Boyd had called und offered to give her LlO on account of the kindness he had received from Ma: Coleman ; did hot. hear- anything said about cbn?ideratibn for ■promissory note., ■- ■'.:■■ '..-':i ..•:!; • .- .-■■■:'■ '..■■■■■ ■■■ By Mr Hankins:— Heard Boyd's evidence.; w^s certain. Boy d^-. sa}d 119 one was present bSit himself and JSJrs "Colemau'. ' J •■•• ': r ' '■■'' ' "'■ I v '- n: ; ' : '' ! '' ' „ 'Wi S H. SmithY journalist: He reported the ease BoycH\ Coleman. Took pretty copious- notes'; heard Mrs Coleniaii feworii j,ha(i not now got the notes, they ii having being; decoyed; they wetg-'^ent to the printing office and published 6n the 21st. Gopy of papdr produced; . .', Mr jiankins objected to this evidence, the witness having; destroyedhife notes, he contended secondary evidence was not admissible ; newspaper reports were. not're:liable,and m this instance .worthless* ;■■_'■■.: = Mv> ijawjdns affirmed the; evidence was adraLs.4ble. Counsel for defendant did' not further object; and the'^ paper was then put} mas evidence. Witness stated the report to be a correct copy ofhianotes, - >■' ■■•■*' «- : -i By Mr Hankjnst—^ :; The report w as a-^correct copy to the bdgt^of his Jbelief-rDiil notsompai-ere- 1 : port with notes after having been printed-; ie was a; c'6'nde'nsed' report. • By Mr Haiikins :^Have no doubt of the correctness of he report. - - •;; Mr Hankins pointed out an evident error m the repprt,,to show the unreliable nature df : tbejrim&B' L report. The witness admitted the error,- referxed to. t ..."'*. (J. Bpyd dQpoaed as follows, j— Remembered the case heard on. 'SlbtH Pfecember. The eyidence sworn \>y Mi's Coleman was entirely false. The promissory npte-and ( cheque, were given on tlip' same. day. f Ni.vono whs present but myself and Mrs {JJolijnian, oxcept when a girl was called ,t<> 1 •ring spiii c g,iim tq paste, the i paper ; on ihe.iiaok of the promissory note.; , Tjus ' was on day, afternoon." Xl is Coietiian ha'dibeen repeatedly .at^me for the toa.u.'of money, and haying sohi.e' nip»ei; lying a *" bacfe which I was .no,!;' using decided 1 to lend her .£lO. She came to my hoitse two or three days asking; me to lend her money itq pay interest on njorfcgage to the Building Society or something 1 of , the kind ; : - this was on; the 1 lth of ,^uj;u3t, liJߧ3.1 iJB§3. Cheque ami promis so^ynote/prp^uped); these are the ones gjyen. I g^v.e tl]e. cheque, and received the^prpmif&oty note on 1 the 11th of August at Mi;s Coleinan?s House. I do not remember b,eing at her house on Tuesday 14th August, and no document passed between, us on- that .day. I received an 1.0. U. some days . after distinct from the othor money en. tiroly, itiis was borrowed to.bring Mrs Levy back from Wellington. It is pntirely fajse that T gavj^ tliti. cheque as a ' gift to Mrs Coleman.; ?efpre ll,,, gate.y t e. thci ch'eqiiej she understoo.(d I wns^to got a promissory note for same amount; no promissory note and cheque passed between her aijid myself m the presence of anyone m her house. When the bill caute dijo J was requested to meet it, ..and Mi's C(jl<}Tnan wanted me, tp reiiew- the tail." 'On 'Tuesday or Wednesday m lfoyeml)ei;,jl was called by Mrs Colem«h, wpo wanted to know if I was going to put the bailiffs m her house for the money, and take the bread out of tbo childrens' mouths. I said I could

not help it as I wanted money badly. I s 1 ill swear that I gave that cheque on the 11th of Augn«t. and got the promissory note at the same time ; this I positively swear to be the facts of the case. . By Mr Hankins : — l'know Mr licklebanfc. I never m •conjunction with: Mr Coleman made it warm for Mm.) I heard, -of the accident: to Mr Tricklebank ; never told him T made a present, bf £10 to Mrs Coleman m recognition of kindness received from Mr Coleman ; was at Terrace End on the Tuesday following the day I gave the cheque lo Mm Coleman. . X was from information received from Mrs Chleman that the charge of larceny was laid against Mrs Boyd and afterwards Mis Coleman's sister. I did tell Mrs Coleman not to tell anyone I had given her the cheqne the reason being I did not want my housekeeper to know it. I have no more respect for the man Coleman than for any other man about the streets dead or alive. I paid him for any work lie ever did for me. Constable Gillespie being sworn deposed :— I recollect the 20th December ; was m. Court part of time the case' Boyd v. Coleman was being heard; heard pail of the evidence of Mr Coleman ; heard her swearing about receiving a cheque as a free gift without any consideration; remember hex- stating her father was present when the pro- , missory note was drawn up and a woman known as Mrs Boyd ; she stated she bad received a cheque for £10 previously ; thought it strange to hear her swear that as she told me she had borrowed the £10 about October or November. She came to the Couit House to make some complaints about Mr Boyd and told me m a general -way that she- had borrowed £10 from Boyd and was sorry she had anything 1 to do ; with him at all as he had been a per- ! feet nuisance to her ever since. Mr Hawkins applied for an adjournment and a warrant to be issued for the appearance of one, Emma' Doig, as a witness. She was m Wellington and had been subpoenaed, but has not come and was the principal witness for the prosecution. Mr Hankins objected. Kir. Hawkins seated that he had another witness, a Mr Roberts, at present m "Wairarapa. The bench refused to grant an adjournment. l '•"Mr- Hankins having gone over the: evidence, contended there was nothing ! to prove perjury had been committed. The accused" having been cautioned m the visual way, stated she had nothing to say except that Mr Boyd gave her the money. He made her a present of the Llo,' For the defence Mr Hankins called O. Tricklebank :— T know Boyd auJ . Coleman, the late Mr Coleman acted for me m some money matters between me and Boyd ; had a conversation some six or seven months ago with Boyd ; • he then said he (Boyd) was going to make Mrs Coleman a present of LlO : . Boyd made this statement live times to my recollection j my attention was, drawn to the report appearing m the < papers of the civil case Boyd v. Coleman, and I then said " why that's the LlO Boyd promised to give her." \ L. L. Levj;l remember a conversation j taking place between myself and Boyd ! m Mrs Colenvau's dining-room . I told ; him he might not have issued the summons. He said it was very .much j against his. will that .his lawyer had got the Bill from him when he was half drunk. H had only got it ; from Mrs Coleman as a matter of form it was never intended it should be met. I .told, him if he would go to Mr Haw- • kins and get it I should arrange with him. He said Mr Hawkins would not give it to him. ; T Goodison remembered Boyd and Mrs Mitchell Coming to Mrs Coleman's ; house ; heard JVf rs Coleman make some J remarks about the money* lent her by' Boyd and heard Boyd stale that he should never make use of the bill which he received from Mrs Coleman. I saw Mis Coleman sign the bill. No. other document was signed at that time. Boyd was sober. • By Mr Hawkins — It was on the 14th : August the promissory note was signed ; , I was a witness m the civil case^ do not remember what -occurred on the 211 ft or 22nd December.-; Boyd' said to me; "1 will never talie any further proceedings." A document was written I believe \jy Xevy under Boyd's direc- j tions-to the effect that he would with- 1 draw ~ alb 'claims he had or considered: he had against Mrs Coleman. • Mrs Mitchell remembered A ugust . last, * Oir one day she was present at j Mrs Coleman's house. Boyd helped ■ to.oarry jny.baby, and gave it .sixpence ;! lieaid Mrs Ooleman accuse Boyd of; circulating a report about the money' he 'had given her. Saw Mrs Coleman j sign the promissory note, Mrs Boydj was present, and *aid she would tear it! up. He- called her a fool,, and aaid she j f tei «Ud npt "know what . she talked j about. Gpoflison and Mrs Boyd were there,. J3aw. "rip 'cheque change hands. Viwiiia Colemaif, daughter of the. accused remembered August last, on' accrouwt of 'her sis<ier ? & • birthday /falling j on the 12th of -that- month. Never got i any gum fqr uiy mother to -patch up the ; promissory note with. I saw niy^ mother and Mrs Poyd talking 'about J the. promissory note. It was af te,r my • swteiVbu'thday, I saw the people at : the house. , , . . • . ; ■ <- This closed the case for the defence. ' Messrs Hawkins and Hankins both j reviewed the evidence at ' considerable ; length. : The Be&idenfc Magistrate said he rimst consider, that the. prosecution had out a prirhq facie case to be dealt with ! by a jury. ;> ' : ' I The accused was then committed for j trial at the next District Conrt sittings | to be holden at Palmerston North. Bail was accepted m her dwarecbg-i nizahce for £5. ■