CHARGE OF PERJURY AGAINST MRS. R. GRAHAM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7904, 24 March 1887, Page 6

CHARGE OF PERJURY AGAINST MRS. R. GRAHAM.

Mrs. Jane Graham was charged yesterday before H. G. SethSmltb, Esq., Police Magistrate, with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in evidence given in the Supreme Court, in May last, in the case of Ann Robertson v. the Executors of the late Robert Graham. Mr. Hudson Williamson appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. F. Earl for the defenoe. The case arose out of the long-continued dispute regarding the Ohinemutu Hotel, from which the plaintiff in the present notion had been ejected, All witnesses were ordered out of Court Mr. Williamson, in opeaing the case, stated the circumstances leading up to the issue of the writ in the Supreme Court, and its subsequent issue against the executors of the estate of the late Robert Graham. The charge arose out of the evidence given by a witnoss for the defenoo before Mr. Justice Gillies. He then detailed tho cause of the civil action, which was for a claim for £1000 by Mi's. Ann Robertson for forcible ejectment from the Ohinemutu Hotel. She brought her action and witnesses to prove the ejectment by Mr. Robert Graham, but the defence was that the acts were done by the natives, who it was alleged, were the ground landlords. Tho evidenoe was very evenly balanced, and the testimony of Mrs. Graham turned tho scale In favour of the defenoe. The statement was very material indeed to the case, and went to establish the defenoe. It was that Mrs. Graham deposed that Mr. Graham was not in Ohinemutu, but was on his way to Auckland, and therefore was not present at the ejectment. The evidence for the proseoution would prove most conclusively that Mr. Graham was In and about the hotel at the time, and that Mrs. Graham was also there. As that would prove the falsity of the statement, then it would remain for His Worship to judge whether it was made in the knowledge of the witness. If it was held so, then it would be perjury, and the Court would bo bound to commit, and not undertake to decide whether it was done with a corrupt motive. Mrs. Robertson had been for years fighting her rights single handed against the accumulation of wealth and the social position of the defendants. Charles White Cave, solicitor, deposed that he acted as solicitor for Mrs. Robertson, and issued tho writ in the Supreme Court against Mr. Robert Graham. He detoiled the olaim. Knew Mrs. Robert Graham, who gave evidence in the case. To supportthecase, it was necessary toshow that the seizure and sale of the hotel was made at the instigation of Mr. Graham, and that he was the moving spirit in It. Evidence was also called to prove that Mr. Graham was also present at the time of the soizure and the sale. He was not certain that he was present at the sale, but he was at the soizure, and the proceedings subsequent. The plaintiff's witnesses supported that evidence. Mrs. Graham was sworn in that case by the proper officer of the Court. She was examined on behalf of the defendants, and said that Mr. Graham was not present at the proceedings in Ohinemutu, but that he was either at Tauranga or on his way to Auokland, or in Auckland, during the proceed ings. Recollected 'her denying that Mr. Graham had instigated the sale in any way. and stating that the sale had been instigated by certain natives who claimed rent for the premises. That evidence was most certainly very material to the Issue of the case.

To Mr. Earl : Ho thought that Mrs. Graham was called near the end of the case for the defence. Did not remember nearly all the witnesses admitting that Mr. Graham was near Ohinemutu. Would not say that Mr. Edwards had said bo, and would not pledge himself to anything that Mr. Edwards said. The purport of the whole of the evidence was that Mr. Graham was not in Ohinernutu. Did not remember him (Mr. Earl) asking Mrs. Graham at the time whether she was saying it to the best of her knowledge or belief. From his knowledge of the whole of the case, he did not think that the answer was given inadvertently. He thought it was given deliberately and given of her own knowledge. Had refreshed his memory from a copy of the Judge's notes and the newspapers. William Robinson, reporter on the Herald staff, remembered the case in the Supreme Court between Mrs. Robertson and the executors of Mr. R. Graham. He took the notes of the evidence at the trial, and remembered Mrs. Graham giving evidenoe. Recollected her making a statement in regard to Mr. Graham not being in the whereabouts of the hotel at the time. Generally the evidence for the plaintiff went to show that Mr. Graham had instigated the ejectment of Mrs. ■ Robertson from the hoteL The evidence for the defendant was that Mr. Graham had nothing to do with it, and that Mrs. Graham swore that Mr. Graham was in Tauranga or on his way to Auckland, or in Auckland. Had taken notes of the evidence which were printed on the day of the trial. Witness then read from the printed report in the Herald. It was, that Mr. Graham was in Tauranga, or on his way to Auckland, or in Auckland when the entry was made to the Ohinemutu Hotel. Those were the words she used. To Mr. Earl: Recollected Mr. Earl saying to Mrs. Graham afterwards, "That is to tho best of your belief, Mrs. Graham ?" It was put partly in the nature of a question, and partly as a remark. He was very much surprised at the answer at the time, as several witnesses on both sides swore positively that Mr. Graham was about Ohinemutu at the time. Ann Robertson deposed that the was the plaintiff in the action against Mr. R. Graham's executors for entry into her hotel. She was present at the trial in the Supreme Court on May 11, 1886. Remembered Mm. Graham giving evidenoe and stating in regard to her husband's whereabouts at the time of the entry into the hotel. She said her husband was not in Ohinemutu on that day, and that he was either in Tauranga on his way to Auckland, or in Auckland. Also that he knew nothing of the sale of her (witness') furniture. Witness was immediately behind the reporters in the Court, and close to the witness-box at the time. Was certain she heard her correctly at the time. To Mr. Earl • The Judge, who seemed to be writing, said: "Your husband was not in Ohinemutu tho day Mrs. Robertson was ejeoted?" Mrs. Graham replied "No, your Honour." Francis Bernard Scott, deposed that he resided at Ohinemutu as a general oommisr sion agent. Had lived there for fifteen years, and knew the history of the Ohinemutu Hotel. He recollected perfectly the arrangements made for the ejectment of Mrs. Robertson from the hotel. They were made by Mr. R. Graham. Witness described the steps taken to get Mrs. Robertson ejected. They were all from the same source, Mr. Graham being present most of the time. Witness deposed to obeying the instruction of Mr. Graham in regard to what way the ejectment was carried out. It was done after Mr. Graham had consulted the Hon. P. A. Buokley, who was a visitor, on some legal questions. Witness was crossexamined at considerable length. O. M. Creagh, surveyor, Parnell, deposed to being present in Ohinemutu when tho ejectment took place. He saw Mrs. Robertson put out so roughly that he protested against it, and complained to the constable Haw Mr. Graham in conversation with the Hon. P. A. Buckley, who was a visitor at the hotel. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Earl. The case for the prosecution had not concluded at five o'olock, and at that hour the further hearing was adjourned till Saturday.