RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 201, 31 July 1862, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

"Wednesday, 30tii July,

[Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.j

Drtjxkexxess.—Daniel Weir and James Jackson •were fined 20s. each for this offence, or, in default, 43 Lours' imprisonment.

Wilful Perjury".—J.uues Simeon Baphael was charged on the information cf Detective Tuck well ■with having been guilty of wilful perjury on the 15th instant, iv the matter of De Wolff and" Another v. Raphael.

Air. Koworth conducted the prosecution. Mr. Barton appeared for the accused. Joseph Tuck well sworn, stated, that on the 15th instant, he was present in the Court, and heard a portion of the case in which the accused was the defendant, Joseph de Wolff and Samuel Kainus beingthe plaintiffs. He was present when the accused was sworn according to the mode of his persuasion. At the time of the accused's evaminntion, witness took some notes, which he now produced and read: — "Tuesday, July 15th. —De Wolff and Another v. Raphael.—ln course of examination, Raphael said that he had been 091-ral £700 for the room in question by Mr. Howell, of the firm of Schuhkiafft and Howell, of Melbourne ; consequently he was a loser/ Ciois-exninined by Mr. Barton • The note in question was the only one he took on that occasion. He was only present during a portion of the case. The reason he took the note was, that the defendant's statement seemed to him improbable, and that several parties in Court state I it to be a gross perjury. He was not certain whether or not- he heard the entire evidence given by Raphael. He had never had any communication with De Wolff and Ramus relative to the present subject. He took the notes in question without any previous concert or arrangement with De Wolff or Ramua. He took the notes a few seconds after Raphael gave his evidence. He could not say whether Raphael made the statement in question in his examination-in-chief, or in his cross examination. He did not show the notes he made to any one on the loth July. He did not on any occasion show them to De Wolff or Kamu3. He could not remember what was said by Raphael, either before or after the evidence he took down. The accused gave his evidence fast ; he generally speaks in a quick, abrupt manner. He swore positively thai the words he read were verbatim. He (witness), was in the police at Geelong, and was discharged, having gut on the spree about seven years ago, but was subsequently taken on. Several other questions of a very personal nature and quite irrelevant to the matter, were put to the witness.

Mr. Howorth advised Mr. Tucliwell not to reply to such questions. Cross examination resumed: —He had never any business transactions with Raphael. lie Lad known Raphael in Melbourne. He bad obtained a reversible coat from the accused three or four mouths ago in Dunedin; he had not yet paid for it; he had subsequently sold the coat, but declined to say to whom. Mr. Howorth held that this extraneous matter was simply taking up the time of the Court, and was quite irrelevant to the subject. Cross examination continued: —Witness knew Mr. Husband. Had not seen him on that day. Had seen him several times the day previous. Joseph de Wolff, stated that his partner, Ramus, and he had rented certain premises from the a ccused and had entered an action against him to recover a sum of money. The case had been heard on the 15th inst., -when the witness was present during the whole of the hearing. The defendant Raphael stated that he had been oiiered £700 for the premises in question by Mr. Howell, of the firm of Schuhkrafft and Howell, of Melbourne. The witness could not say whether the defendant stated that in his examination in chief or otherwise. Samuel Ramus corroborated the previous witness' statement. Henry Howell, stationer, said—He knew the premises in question, in Stafford-street, belonging to the defendant, and had had a conversation with him respecting them. The offer Raphael made was, that he should have a portion of the store, two rooms that were j partitioned off, and the use of the kitchen, for £450, or the -»4io!e of the premises for his term for £700. In either case, the money was to be paid either in weekly instalments of £S, or by acceptances. The conversation took place about the sth or o"th instant. Mr. Howorth stated that he did not propose to press the case ; what the accused had stated could scarcely be construed into perjury. His Worship dismissed the case. CIVIL CASES. M'Neill v. Pink.—Claim for £18 10s. Mr. Howorth appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilson for the defence. The case was adjourned for the defendant to prccure necessary evidence, till the 13th prox. Robixsox, Hart & Co. v. Gibbons & Wilson.— Claim for £18 16s. 6d. Mr South appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Hagpritt for the defence. A rehearing had been granted in this case, on the ground of surprise, and for the production of material evidence. His Worship considered there had been no grounds for a rehearing, and consequently should not reverse his former decision. Judgment for the plaintiffs for £18 16s. 6d. All remaining^ civil cases were adjourned till this morning, &t 11 o'clock. The Court adjourned at half-past four o'clock.