MURTAGH'S MISERY.

NZ Truth, Issue 128, 30 November 1907, Page 5

MURTAGH'S MISERY.

HIS PARAMOUR CHARGED WITH PERJURY.

Mrs Leigh's Explanation Satisfactory.

The Charge is Witkdrawii.

One of the most remarkable case*, on the criminal calendar of the' Wellington Supreme Court sittings, was the charge against jockey Ivdward jyTurtagh, charged with maiming; with a razor his alleged illegitimate child. Murtagh was eighteen years of ag» when he first fell under the magnetic influence of Mrs Leigh, who was living apart from her. husband, Harry Leigh, described as a jockey. who is not unfamiliar with the inside of a gaol. During the three >years Mur-ta-gh was associated with the woman, a girl was born to. bless the unhallowed connection, and by-and-by •hen Murtagh'-s fancy lightly, turned to another woman, there was a row and the little girl, Tui Leigh, v?as cut with a razor m an unexpliraMe manner. All of the nroba'Mlities pointed^ to either Murtagh or Mrs Leigh as the perpetrator of the deed, and after a two hours' retirement an impressionable jury decided that Murtagh was the cuiprit, and he went up

FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS. The principal evidence against him was that of Mrs Leigh, whose testimony m the Lower Court with resard to the registration of the child «ras found to be incorrect. The woman 'sw.ore that Murtagh registered the v child m the name of Harry Leigh, her husband, to escape, its future maintenance. In the Supreme Court, Mr. Herdman produced the authority given to the New Plymouth registrar to register the child, when it was found that it was actually m the handwriting of Mrs Leigh. Moreover, when it was threatened to call proof that Murtagh was not m the house at all when the form was filled m, Mrs Murtagh acknowledged that her evidence m the S.M. Court; must have been mistaken. Philip John Murtagb, the unhappy father qf the .jockey, laid an information charging Mrs Leijrh with poi-iuiT when she Rave the following evidence : "The accused filled it un m my presence," '-'.'Accused filled m the paper at the house.". "After .filling up th« paper, accused folded it up, and, I think, gave it to the little girl to take back to the registrar." "I never supplied the particulars."

The woman was charged with the offence at Wellington S.M, Court on Wednesday, when Mr Kirlccaldie, on behalf of Mr Herdman, said that Mrs Leigh's explanation of the tency had been accepted as satisfactory. The woman said she wa* notwell when the child was registered, which affected her testimony when she Rave evidence m the Lower Court concerning the filling of the birth certificate, and, m the circumstances of the prosecution, desired to withdraw the information of periurv.. ;

Mr Wilford, for the accused, stated that the woman had been subjected to a trying cross-examination, lasting some time, and made some admissions which she believed to be true. He considered the prosecution unwaranted. and it was just as woll that it had been withdrawn. Mr Kirkcaldie strongly OBJECTED TO THE TERM UNWARRANTED. and regretted that it had been used by Mr Wilford, In permitting the withdrawal o! the information. Magistrate Riddoll expressed his agreement with the remarks recently made by Justice Cooper, who protested against the institution of proceedings for perjury m the Lower Court before the case had been heard m the Supreme Court.