POLICE COURT.—Wednesday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1189, 5 September 1867, Page 4

POLICE COURT.—Wednesday.

(Before Thomas Beckham,'Esq., 8.M.) DRUITKAEDS. "William Mitchell, Wiremu, Jaue Hughes, and Mary liobinson, were dealt with in the usual manner for imbibing. ' ' ' PEItJUEY. • George Dunnett, in custody on a charge of perjury, in virtue of the information laid by Mr. Mark Somerville, appeared at the bar of the Court. Mr. James B'ussell said he was glad to b« able to inform the (Sourt, that with the permission of the Court, the charge wliich. was now laid against the prisoner would be withdrawn. He thought it only right to the Court and to the public, that the reasons tor withdrawing a charge of a serious nature should be publijly stated. Since the information against the defendant was laid, the defendant had addressed to Mr. Somerville a letter, which, with the permission of the Court, ho (Mr; Russell) would now read - Auckland, Sept. 4th, 1867. Sir, —The statement made by mo during my recent examination in the Bankruptcy Court, that I had received from you a cheque for £600 for the purpose .of obtaining gold for the Bank oi Auckland, or for any other purpo Be, was made in error, us I never did reoeivo any each cheque from you. I also bog to" state that I never paid you a cheqas for £600, as was alleged by me. I beg to express my sincere regret for having used your name in the manner I did, and for any 1 annoyance these mis-statements may have occasioned you.—Tours obediently, GEOEGB Dunkbtt. To Mr. M. Somerville. —It will be thus seen that the defendant hai made the fullest apology within his power for the misstatement made by him, and that apology lie (Mr. Bussell) was willing to accept on behalf of his client, who, he begged to state, was in this matter actuated by no motires of ill-feeling towards the defendant, ■ but brought forward this charge for the purpose of vindicating his veracity, which had been impugned by ths statements complained of in the Bankruptcy Court. The defendant had asserted on his oath that a 'check for £500 had been given by Mr. Somerville to Hunter and Co. for the purpose of obtaining gold for the Bank of Auckland, and that statement had been denied by Mr. Somerville also on oath. The , present charge against the defendant would test the veracity of both parties, and was brought by Mr. Somerville to shew that what he had stated was true. The defendant now admits what he stated in reference to the cheque for £500 to bo untrue, and regrets having made such a statement. He (Mr, Russell) did not believe that the defendant had made the statements referred to in the Bankruptcy Court " wilfully and corruptly," and although. if the case was proceeded with, tlie defendant would probably bo committed for trial to the Supreme Court yet ho doubted whether ho would bo ablo to provo that tho statements were " wilfully and corruptly 11 made, for that would be essential to prove a conviction. His client considered the statements and apology sufficient, and would now with the permission of the Court withdriMV the charge.

Mr. Macdonald, in reply, said he was happy to be. able to afford such an explanation in the matter, for whilo it showed Mr. Somervillc's statement, that ho had never given the cheque to be presently mentioned to be perfectly true; and Mr. Dunnet's statement that Mr. Somerville had given such a chcque, to be entirely untrue, yet, that Mr. Dunnett had spoken in as entire good faith, as Mr. Somerville. The facts, which were well known to the public, were these :—Mr. Dunnett had recently been examined in the Bankruptcy Court of this District, and on the day of Mr. Dunnet's examination ho had been questioned as to a sum of £1,000 which appeared to his credit in the passbook of his account with tho Bank of Auckland. Mr. Dunnett had then frankly stated that he could not understand what that entry meant as he had received no such sum from any one at that dato. A Mr. Flint, wko Had been clerk to Hunter & Co., was at that time in Court, and on Mr. Dunnct leaving the witnessbox ho remarked in the hearing of himself (Mr. Macdonald) that Mr. Dunnet might have explained what the £1,000 meant, as it was for two cheques of Eyrie's and Soraerville's for £600 each, obtained to get the Bank gold, and that if the pass-book were referred to, Eyrio's £500 and Somorvillc's £500 would be found on the debit side. Tho pass-book bore this statement out (pass-book produced), and it was now for him (Mr. Macdonald) to explain what this getting gold meant, and to show how it bore on the case. It appeared that tho Bank of Auckland had ueon for some time in the habit of meeting its exchanges by getting Mr. Dunnet, nnd no doubt other frionds to get cheques from gentlemen upon other banks in exchange for the marked cheques of Hunter and Co. By this means the Bank of Auckland was prepared with gold to meettho evil day of exchanges, literally redeoming its notes from the other banks in their own coin.

„ After a few moro remarks from the learned fentleman he requested the Court to discharge Ir. Dunnet in'such a manner that he might leavo tlio Court without a stain upon his character.

His Worship said that it was certainly the most novel mode of banting he had ever heard of, and it was clear that Mr. Somerville would not like his name mixed up with such business as that; no doubt Mr. Dunnett had made the statement under somo misapprehension from the letter written, and thus that explanation should hare been mado at once to Mr. Somervillo by Mr. Dunnct. Upon • examination of the passbook upon which Mr. Dunnett was being examined it was clearly s«en how the error occurred. The course which Mr. Dunnett should hare pursued was to have made the same apology which ho has now made as soon as he had discovered his error in the Bankruptcy Court. Had he done so lie would not stand in the very unpleasant position in which he does. Mr. Somerrillo has adopted the only course open to him to vindicate the veracity of his statement, and he was glad that the defendant had now made the apology which has been read, and thus placed Mr. Soxnervillo in a position to withdraw the charge. Mr. Dunnett was then discharged from custody. This conoluded the business.