ALLEGED PERJURY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9656, 31 October 1894, Page 3

ALLEGED PERJURY.

CHARGE AGAINST ABRAHAM

BOWDEN. ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. The sixth day's hearing of the charge 0 perjury preferred against Abraham Bowden in connection with evidence given by him in a case of assault, Dawson v. Bowden, heard on the sth of September, before Mr. H. W. Northcroffc, was opened yesterday before Mr. R. S. Bush, S.M. Mr. McAlister prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr. Cotter was for the accused.

When the Court opened, Mr. Cotter said, after the late sitting last night, and after His Worship had visited the scene of the assault, he felt he was now justified in asking His Worship's views. He had -already submitted his principal evidence. There were three other witnesses whom he had intended to call, but their evidence would only bo corroborative, and His Worship having now heard the evidence, and seen the locus in quo, he would ask His Worship to say whether he was not satisfied that there was not a reasonable probability that a jury would not) convict. If His Worship was satisfied of that, he would ask hire to discharge the accused. As the case was so protracted, he would now ask for an expression qf opinion, although he should not have done so under ordinary circumstances, but the other three witnesses could only give corroborative evidence. Mr. McAlister s*id he was in the same position as his learned friend. Ho could have called three other witnesses for the prosecution, but he did nob wish to take up the time of the Court, and when he had, as he thought, established a prima, facie case, he let it drop. His Worship said he had no objection to express an opinion now. In a case of this kind the magistrate was not sitting in a judicial, but in a ministerial capacity. He was nob called upon to say whether he would convict on the evidence, but if he considered a prima facie case was made out, is would be his duty to send ib for trial. If, however, the case was a weak one, and the defence explained away the facts on which the case was based, then the magistrate would dismiss it. In this case, he was of opinion that a prima facie case had been made out. There had been a great conflict of testimony, and it was laid down that where such a conflict of testimony existed, ib was the duty of the magistrate to commit.

Mr. (Jotter said, after that expression of opinion, he should nob call other evidence. His Worship then committed Abraham Bowden to take his trial at the next criminal sittings of the Suprome Court, on the charge of perjury. Mr. Cotter asked that defendant's own bail might be accepted. He had attended here on summons from day to day, and there was no disposition on his part to evade the trial.

Mr. McAlister said he could hardly consent to that, although he had no wish to appear as a persecutor, but he had no doubt Mr. Bowden could easily find solvent bail. His Honor then fixed the bail at defendant's own bond of £100 and two sureties of £50 each.

In regard to tho witness Ringland, who had been detained in order to ascertain what course should bo taken regarding him in respect of tho contradictory evidence he had given in the case, His \\ orship said lie considered the proper course would be to bind the witness over to give evidence in the trial at the Supreme Court, and it would then be for the Judge to say what should be done.

Mr. McAlister said he had looked into the matter, and he should ask that the witness be bound over. He would givo special directions to tho police to keep an eye on him, and if he attempted to leave Auckland to arrest him. When he came before the Supreme Court, Mr Cotter and tho Crown solicitor would no doubt arrange what steps should be taken regarding him.