DISTRICT COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 426, 8 September 1877, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

YESTERDAY. (Before His Honor Judce llarvkv. > IN BANKRUPTCY. In re William Jamieson.—Mr. L .try, as a trustee in this case, asked his Honor for an opinion as to whether a claim for rent should he included with other claims against the Estate. His Honor deferred a reply. • —■ THIS DAY. His Honor took his seat on the Bench at 10 a.m. FALSE PRETENCES. William Clark Earl, alias William Clark, who was yesterday found guilty of obtaining money by means of false pi-e----tences, was brought up for sentence. His Honor said the prisoner had been found guilty on the clearest testimony. This did not seem to be his first offence, as he appeared to have been making a practice of using false ■ pretences. The . sentence of the Court was that prisoner should receive two years' penal servitude. PERJURY. Mary Walker was indicted with having, on the 27th July last, during the hearing of a case of selling liquor without a license against her husband, Wni. Walker, knowingly and wilfully committed perThe prisoner pleaded Not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. White) appeared for tl e prosecution, and Mr. G'Meagher for the prisoner. The following jury was empannelled : James Scott (foreman), H. H. Coggins, James Culder, Patrick Croft, Thomas Wright, Henry ~F. Sidon, John Bennett, George Lockwood, James Wansbrough, James Paterson, Robert Watson, and Henry Bruce. The Crown Prosecutor briefly opened the case, and called the following witnesses :—Thomas W. Parker (R.M.), W. G. Filleul (Clerk of the Court), Thos. M. Smith (Sub-Inspector of !'olic ,j ), Thomas Lindsa3 T , James Young, Peter Cockburn, and Alexander Aikenlu ad.

The charge against the prisoner was that, on the 27th July, during the hearing of an information for selling liquor without a license, prefern d hy the police against her husband, William Walker, she falsely swore that she did not see a •witness in the ease named Lindsay in the sitting-room or bedroom of her husband's house on the evening of the 6th July ; that Lindsay did not pay her half-a-croun tl at evening ; t 1 at she had never received a penny from Lindsay on any occasion ; tl at she did not see Lindsay in company •with either Cockburn, Aikenhead, or Young, in the f-itting-room or bedroom of her husband's house on the night of the 6th July last. These statements were contradicted by Thonvs Lindsay and Jis. Youiisj, who gave similar evidence to that givtn by them on former occasions, and wl ich ] as already been published by us. Peter Cockburn stati d that lie did not see the prison* r in the house on the night in question. Ahxander Aikenhead gave evidence to the effect that he ! ad been present in the room with Lindsay, Cockburn, and Walker on the evening in question, and that there was a female pr< sent, but 1 e could not swear that the prisoner mss the female who was present. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. O'Meagher did not call any witnesses for the defence. The Crown Prosecutor addressed the ■jury, and briefly reviewed the evidence, pointing out that although the evidence of Lindsay and Young had not been corroborated by Cockburn, the evidence of Lindsay and Young was sutlicient in law to warrant the jury finding the prisoner guilt}-. An adjournment then took place. On the Court resuming, Mr. O'Meagher raised several objections on the ground that a'legations in the indictment had not been proved. After some argument, his Honor overruled the objections. Mr. O'Meagher then at some length addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and pointed out the great number of discrepancies in" the evidence given by the witnesses for the prosecution. He said that of all the cases of perjury which had ever come under his notice the present case was the very weakest. He was confident that the jury would have no difficulty in returning a verdict, and he had no doubt that that verdict would be one of not guilty. His "Honor, having briefly explained the law of perjury, directed the jury to leave out all consideration of the point whether Lindsay had paid the prisoner half-a-crown for liquors. The evidence of Lindsay on that point was not supported by that of any other witness, while it had been flatly contradicted by the prisoner, and it therefore became a matter of oath against oath. The points the jury had to consider were whether Lindsay was in the prisoner's house on the evening in question, and waether the prisoner saw Lindsay there. -He (the learned Judge, could not come to a conclusion that the prisoner had seen Lindsay, and he did not see how the jury could come to such a conclusion. He then read through portions of the evidence, and pointed out how the testimony of each of the witnesses was contradicted by that of the other witnesses. He said the case for the Crown was very weak, and it was scarcely necessary for 'him to read through the whole of the evidence. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of Xot guilty. The accused was then discharged.