RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 419, 31 August 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before T. AV. Parker, Esq., R.M.) ILLICIT DISTILLATION. John Chalkci' was again charged on remand with having in Jiis possession a still and other utensils suitable for distillation, without Ileitis licjn.si.-d so to do. His Worship said that, after consideration, he had decided to allow the prosecution to call additional evidence in this case, and mentioned the case of Woodgate as an instance wlu-re additional evidence had been allowed to be called after the ease had been closed. Mr. O'.Meagher asked that a note might lie taken of his objection. Mr. Bdmer then applied for a further remand of the case. His Worship remanded the case until Monday next, at 11 a.m. (Before .1. Vdai.l, and \V. .1. Sitavakh, Ks(|S.,.T.PV) PERJURY. Mary Walker w-as charged, on remand, with ln.v'ng. i i the Resident Magistrate's Court, Oamaru, on the 27th July, falsely, wickedly, and corruptly committed wilful and corrupt perjury in the testimony which she gave upon oath in her examination before T. W. Parker, Esq., Resident Magistrate, upon the hearing of a certain information, wherein T. M. Smith, Sub-Inspector of Folic >, was the informant, and William Walker the defendant.

Sub-Inspector Smith appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. O'Meagher defended the accused.

Thomas W. Parker, R.M., deposed that he remembered sitting on the l)eiich on the 27Ui of July last. There was an adjourned case heard that day against William Walker for permitting spirits to he sold on his premises at Kakanui North. Mary Walker was examined on that day. She was sworn in the usual manner l>y him. After having hecn so sworn, the accused stated that she was not in the bedroom or sitting-room oil the evening of Friday, (ith July. She denied having received any money from Lindsay, or having served Young with refreshments. From the positive manner in which the accused had given her evidence, he (witness) had been induced to dismiss the case. He had no reason to doubt the other witnesses, but thought they might lie mistaken.

Cross-examined by Mr. O'Meagher: The accused stated that she we"t to a dance that evening. Sin; also swore that she did not supply Young with a glass of lemonade and a. sandwich.

T umias Lindsay, blacksmith, residing at Kakanui, said he knew the accused. He remembered the <it.!i of July last. He had seen her in her husband's house at Kakanui that evening. He s*w her in the sit;i>)g-room and afterwards in the 1 e Iroom. He was sob. rat the time. He was in the company of Mr. Young, jeweller, of Orepono. i'io did not recollect who was in the room at time, lie had known the accused owr two years. When they iir.it went iino the bedroom Young took something out of his pocket and handed it to Mrs. Walker, who said something about an earring. Cross-examined by Mr. O'M'agher : Witness said, lie would swear that it wis not on the 2:>ih June that the earring was handed to Mrs. Walker. lie was at Walker's house on the 20 h June. Youngwas there also, but lie did not see Cockburn there that evening lie was not confounding events which took place on the 2:>th .J'uno with those which occurred on the Gth .Julv. While in the house on the (ith Julv" lie heard Mrs. Walker " chafling"' Walker about having gene to Oamaru to purchase some things at the sale of Jamieson's good.-,. James Young, being sworn, stated that on the Oth July lie saw the accused in her house at Kakanui. Mr. Lindsay was with him at the time. This was in a small room with a bed in it. He had some lemonade and a sandwich, but was not sure whether it was given to him by Walker or Mrs. Walker. Mrs. Walker ivas present at the time. He was positive of this. He gave an earring to Mrs. Walker that evening which he had had to repair. The July was on a Friday, but he could not say how many Fridays ago it was. "Cross-examined by Mr. O'Meagher : Witness said he was positive that it was on the (hh July that he gave Mrs. Walker the earring. Peter Cockburn stated that lie remembered being at Walker's house at, Kakanui on a Friday in July, but he could not say what date it was ; it was the day on which Walker was accused of having sold liquor. He saw Lindsay and Cockburn there. Mrs. Walker was three yards outside of the house when he (witness) entered the house. She was carrying a child, and said she was going to the dance at the Athemeuin.

Cross-examined by Mr. o'Meagher : Witness said that he did not see Mrs. Walker in any part <>f the house on tin: evening of the G;h July. The statement made by the witness Lindsay that ho (Cockliuvn) was present in the room with Lindsay and Mrs. Wallctr was not true. He would swear positively that Mrs. Walker was never in the room with him that night. T::is w;is the case for the prosecution. Mr. O'Meagher pointed out that it was necessary in a case < f perjury to have at least two witnesses whose evidence w; n beyond doubt or suspicion. He asked their Worships if, in tnc face of the centradictory evidence of Cockburn, there was anything for him to address them upon. The Bench decided to hear Mr. o'Me :i g'-er. Mi - . O'Meagher then addressed tha Bench on behalf of the accused. He pointed out the contradictory nature of

the evidence of Lindsay and Oockburn. He also alluded to instances in which the evidence of Lindsay was contradicted l>y that of Youn<_r. He urged that the statements made by Mrs. Walker in the grogselling case and that of Cookbnni, to the effect that she was not in the room on the Gth July, was equally as credible as that of Lindsay and Youn if. It had already been shown that Lindsay was capable of being mistaken with regard to the presence <>f Coekburu in the room, and it w;is more than probable that he was also mistaken with regard to Mrs. Walker, lie believed that Lindsay was confounding events which toi>k place on the 2'.hh June with those of the (sth July. Lie argued that a prima farir case had not been made out, and asked the 'Bench to dismiss the case, and not allow a charge to hang over Mrs. Walker's head oil which there was no probability of a conviction beiu'4 obtained. After some short, consultation, the Bench said that, every attention had been Li/en to the evidence. Although they were pelf ■< t'y aware that there was some slight doubt about the matter, on looking over the depositions the contradictions in the evidence were not, of so serious a nature as they appeared at first. The Bench had come to the conclusion that a prima farir case had been made out, and that: the prisoner must, take her trial at the next sitting of the District, Court, ut Oainaru.

On being cautioned in the usual manner tiic prisoner reserved her defence. Bail was allowed prisoner in LSO and two sureties of L2 ~> each.