ALLEGED PERJUEY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 8557, 27 July 1889, Page 6 (Supplement)

ALLEGED PERJUEY.

At the City Police Court yesterday morning, before Messrs J. B. Thomson and J. P. Jones, J.P's., George Wallace was charged on remand by Alexander Campbell with having, on April 30 and May 9, 1889, committed wilful and corrupt perjury in statements made in his examinations before Joha Logan and William Langlands, justices of the peace, during the hearing of a charge of cattle-stealing preferred against Alexander Campbell. The statements alleged to have been falsely made by accused were (11 that it was not a common thing for the said Alexander Campbell and himself to have cattle ia the saleyards, and when they were sold for him (Wallace) to get the money; (2) that he never had partnership dealings, in dairy cattla with the said Alexander Campbell; and (3) that honeverhad any joint transactions with the said Alexander Campbell. Mr Solomon appeared for the proseeutioD, and Mr D. D. Macdonald for the accused. The bearing of the evidence in this case was continued from last Friday. John Logan (recalled) said the court Bat to hear this case on the 30th of April, and on the 2nd and the 9th of May 1889, Wallace only gave evidence on the two latter dates. H. H. G. Ralfe deposed that he was clerk of the court, and acted ia that capacity during the hearing of the case Campbell v. Wallace on the ': 30th of April and 9th of May last. He pro- ' duced the depositions of Wallace takenjon those dates in that case. Wallace was sworn on the Bible by witness. Witness knew the signature of Robert Chisholm on the information produced to be his. Sir Chisholm was a justice of the peace. Alexander Campbell deposed as follows: I am a cattle dealer. I know George Wallace, the accused. I was prosecuted by him in this court for stealing a cow of hia. I remember him giving evidence in that case. He denied being in partnership with mo. That denial was not true. Wo had been dealing, in partnership together, for six months. We were to divido the profits. Sometimes I bought the cattle, sometimes ho did, and sometimes we bought cattle together. There was no written agreement on the subject. This arrangement continued for six months. Some of the cattle were _sold privately and some at the yards. Sometimes I got the money for the cattle and sometimes the accused. We tried to have a " squaring up " last December, but it was never completed. I could not geta squaring up; I know Captain Curie. Wallace and I had partnership transactions with Curie. We went to see him together one day, and we offered for two cows and a bull. We did not buy them then. I afterwards went back and bought one cow anil a bull for the firm. I know a man named Walker. Wallace and I went there to buy cattle. We did not pay for them that day. I went back four or five days afterwards and bought them. I know a Mr Bailey living at Highcliff, Wallace told me that he bought two head of cattle from Bailey and three from another party down there, and that we would have to lift them next week. 1 know aMr Rutherford. We used to take cattle that were bought from the yards and put them in Rntherford's paddock to graze. We sold him cattle too. He used to see us often dealing at the yards. I know Bennett. I remember selling a cow at the yards to him. I got that cow at Henley. I got two and paid for them my»elf. They were both sold at the yards—ono for: £5 and the other for £5 Ss. I know Wallace's signature. That is it to the document produced. Rutherford was present when I bought those cattle, and Rutherford, at my request, took them to his own paddock, and I got them there next day. Shortly before I was charged with stealing Wallace's cow, I had a transaction with the Farmers' Agency Company. They sold four cattle that I bought. I bought two bulls on the Peninsula, and two two heifera from Marshall at Henley. They were sold by Mr Grindley and brought £12 7s 3d, and Wallace got the money. Wallace sold some lambs the same day. The account sales included both the catttle and the lambs. Sometimes we drove cattle to the saleyards together, and sometimes separately. Onr partnership related only to cattle. That was the mutual agreement.—Cross-examined: The partnership agreement was made at the cattle saleyards at Burnside on the Ist October last. There was no writing at all. There was no ono present that lam aware of. He asked me if I could put in £50, and said he would put in another £50. I said "yes." That is all the conversation on the subject that I can remember after that. The partnership began on the Ist of October. I kept my £50 and he kept his. I went and bought, and he did the same. We were to produce our sale accounts. If I Baw a good thing in cattle I was to buy, aDd if he saw the same he was to buy. When I took cattle to the saleyards I sometimes entered them in my own name. Sometimes I bought cattle without consulting Wallace at al!. He did the game. Now and then whra I entered cattle and they were sold I got the money. I don't know whether I oftener got the money than Wallace did, as I never got.a "squaring up." Tho instances I have given in my examination are the only transactions I can remember. Tho two of as made up accounts as well aa we could. He was satisfied and I was not. I have not got j any account showing the positron between us. ] There was such an account. Wallace kept it. We could not come to an arrangement. There has not been a proper squaring np between us J from the beginning. Wallace and I were at 1 Curie's together. Wo must have had a talk j together before we went. We did not buy cattle | that day. I went back a week after and bought a cow and a bull. I did not consult Wallace as to what I was to pay for them. They wero boaght at the yards and sold. I don't remember who entered them or who got the money. I can't swear I did not get the money myself. I went myself to Walker, and bought nine or ten head from him. They were heifers, 1 think. I took them to the yards. I don't remember who entered them or who got the money. I cannot swear that I did not get the money. I'll not swear that Wallace got it. I sold two cows which I got from Edmonds at Henley. They were sold at tho yards, and Wallace got the money. I sold tiro bulls—one I got from Murray and one from Gray. I sold a cow privately to a man at Milton. I exchanged that cow for two dry cows, which I sold in the yards. Besides the transactions I have mentioned, I remember another instance of a partnership transaction. The first trips we went Wallace bought seven head of cattle at Goodwood—three calves, two heifers, and two cows. That was in the beginning of October. Wallace paid for the cattle. We consulted as to the price, but Wallace bought and paid for them. The man we bought from wag a German. I entered the transaction at tho time in my book. I drove tho cattle to the yard, and Wallace got part of the money. I don't know if I got part. Wallace got the money for some sold privately to Shand. Some of my own cattle were among those. We bought four steers at Waikouaitifrom M'Gbarry. We were together when we bought. Wallace made tho bargain and paid £1 deposit, and I afterwards paid tho balance—£s 18a. ' I drove them away with thu Goodwood nnd other cattle. There was an : arrangement betwepn ua that I was to "lift" the cattle as I came back. It is not true that Wallace gave me the £5 18s to pay M'Gharry when I took the cattle away. I paid the money out of my own pocket, but I don't know ! whether I got it back. . . . There was no J fixed arrangement as to who should get tho money from the cattle yards. It sometimes happened that when I bought cattle I got tho money, and that when Wallace bought he got the money at the yards. I was the principal buyer, as Wallace could not be away often. William Langlands (recalled) deposed that he supposed that whatever evidence Wallace gave as to partnership was taken down in bis depositions. He could not swear that all his statements were taken down. Mr Solomon asked Wallace in w^rds to kilo effect if ho had ever had partnership transactions with Campbell, and he denied it. John Logan (recalled; said: I am satisfied that Wallace's evidence, whatever it was, was taken down at the time. I watched it carefully, Kis evidence is in the depositions. I remember Mr Solomon asking Wallace if he had ever had partnership transactions with Campbell, and ha denied that be bud. Alexauder Campbell (recalled) said : During the period of the partnership I never bought or sold any cattle on my own account. During, the whole of that time neither of us were to have any transactions in cattle apart from the partnership. Albert Walker, dairy farmer, residing at Wefit Harbour, deposed that he remembered Campbell and Wallace being at his place in tho early part of the year. Witness had some young cattle to sell, and Campbell and Wallace enmo to his place together. The former went down amongst the cattle, and Wallace introduced himself ai Campbell's partner. Thoy tried to wnke h deal with witness for the cattle, but they did not buy at that time. Campbell afterwards fr'jiipht the cattle and paid for them. Wiien Wallaco introduced himself he Bimply f-iiri, " Campbell and I ace partners."

: James Bailey, farmer, residing at the Pnniui sula, raid he had had dealings with Wallace and Campbell. He remembered them coming to him in February. Wallace came to him first, and said ho. wanted to buy some cattle. He bought some, but did not take them away then. He saii Campbell would call for them in a week, and that they were "in comnauy." Witness thought they were in partnership.—Mr Macdonald, in cross-examining the witness, said he did not wish to trap him, and that he was too clever to be trapped.—Witness thereupon retorted : " I am man enough for you, any way."— (Laughter.) 'Archibald Rutherford, farmer, residing at the Kaikorai, deposed that he had often seen Wai- j lace and Campbell at the saleyards together. On one occasion Wallace told him that he had taken Campbell in as a mate. They often grazed cattle with him. They would make no distinction between each other's cattle. Henry Corisb Bennett deposed that he bought some cows from Wallace and Campbell. He frequently saw them together at the saleyards. If he bought from one of them he considered that they were partners, but he did not know that they were. On one occasion Wallace said Campbell always wanted to have a "squaring up," as if he were suspicious. The cow which was stolen witness bought from Campbell. On one occasion witness bought a cow for £3, aud Rutherford came up and made some remark about the quality of the cow. Campbell and Wallace then " blaguarded " him for interfering with their sale. —Cross-examined: Witness gave evidence in the other case, and an information had since been laid against him for perjury. Iv reply to a question by Mr Macdonald, witness said: You have interfered with my character very much between the lot of you—Mr Macdonald, and a pair of rogues. I wish they had the cow and the money too. The next time I give evidence a policeman will have to come for me. ■ Mr Solomon: I must say the man deserves some sympathy in the matter. He subsequently said that the witness gave his evidence on April 30, and the information against him was laid on the Bth of July. Witness stated that that was so. He also said: " One scoundrel has got the cow and the other has got the money, or I should not have been here to-day." At the conclusion of his evidence, the witness was asked to sign the written depositions which had been taken down by the clerk of the court. Witness, however, objected, saying, " I am not going to sign any more perjuries. They are a a d pair of rogues—that's plain. Hr Solomon then pointed to the depositions asked: " Are you going to sign that or not ?" Witness replied, after a moment's reflection, " I'll sign it; but I may be signing my death warrant.'; —(Loud laughter, in which the bench joined). Thomas Wentworth Taylor, who was in the employ of the Mutual Agency Company, deposed (hat Wallace and Campbell were in the habit of dealing with the company. When dairy cattle were sold either of them came in and got the money. The receipt produced was for two cows sold in the yards in the name of George Wallace. Witness paid Wallace himself. The £7 13s 6d paid to Wallace was for two cows sold at the yards, less commission and yard dues, and a balance owing by Wallace. Witness had dealings with Wallace outiide of cattle, but Campbell was only mixed up with the cattle transactions. Mr Macdouald asked witness how he knew that a certain receipt was for the price of the cows. Witness replied that ha know because he made it out himself. Mr Macdonald : That is not tin answer to my question. Mr Thomson: It is a very straightforward answer. Mr Maodonald: How do you know that is the price of two cows ? Where did you get the information from ? Witness: I got it from the books in the yard; that is enough for me. Mr Macdonald: It may be enough for you; but we will see about that. Witness: It is enough for Campbell and Wallace, any way. Mr Macdonald: No, it is not; and -you have no right to say so. On the cross-examination of witness being continued, he said he did not remember any instance where cattle were entered in the ynrdsin Wallace's name and where Campbell got the money. He, however, gave an instance on the last occasion. After the evidence had been read over to witness, he said he remembered an instance on the 13th of February. Mr Macdonald pointed out that the witness said previously that he did not remember an instance. Mr Thomson asked the witness to tell the bench about the matter. Mr Macdonald objected to its going into the depositions, as the witness stated previously he did not remember an instance. The Bench, however, ruled that the witness' answer should be taken down. Witness stated that on the 13th of February Wallace entered two cows and five bulls for sale, and Campbell got tho money. Mr Macdonald said he would take out a subposna and make the witness produce his books. What he had stated was not evidence. Charles Stuart, in the employ of Donald Reid and Co., was next called upon to give evidence, when Mr Solomon said : Mr Macdonald wanted an instance in which cattle were entered in the name of Wallace and Campbell got the money. Can you tell us of such an instance? Witness: Yes. Mr Macdonald objected to the question. Mr Solomon (to witness): In dealing with these people in dairy cattle did you have any transactions with Wallace outside of dairy cattle? Witness: Yes; the only cattle transactions outside of dairy cattle was for bullocks. Mr Solomon asked who got the money generally. Witness replied that whoever came for the money got it. Mr Macdonald: If this witness' evidence is in the same category as the last—knowledge only derived from |a book—then I submit it is not evidence, and I utter my protest, and wish it to be entered. Mr Solomon said it seemed to him to be perfectly absurd that the same objection should be raised in this case as Mr Macdonald had raised before, when the objection had already beeu disposed of. Mr Macdonsld asked the bench to rule ■whether what the witness said was evidence or not. Witness might just as well tell the court of a conversation he had had with his grandmother. ] Mr Solomon: If the evidence is improper, ■when the case comes before the Supreme Court the judge will not admit it. The bench decided to admit the evidence. Witness then stated that the firm only had one transaction outside of dairy cattle with Campbell and Wallace. The cattle were then entered in Wallace's name, and Campbell got the money. Crosj-examined: Witness did not know of his own knowledge who entered the cattle. He got tho information frciu a book. The knowledge that the money was paid to Campbell was also derived from the books. Witness was iv the office when the money was paid. Wallace had since paid money to the firm, and he never made any objection to the money being paid to Campbell. Edward F. Palmer, in the employ of the Farmers' Agenoy Company, deposed that he was a witness in the case of Wallace v. Campbell. At the beginning of this year they dealt ■with the company. They were " mixed up " in dairy cattle. Walface also "had transactions with the company in sheep, but Campbell had nothing to do with sheep. On Febiuary 28 Campbell got paid £9 8s 6d for cattle sold on account of Wallace, and on March 21 Wallace waspaid £12 7s 3d for cattle entered in Campbell's name. Witness produced the receipts of both transactions. Cross-examined: Witness only knew who entered the cittle at the yards from tho booki Henry Charles Campbell, employed by Reid, Maclean, and Co., stated that he had transactions with Campbell and Wallace in the early part of this year. He had also dealings with Wallace independently of Campbell. In transactions in which the firm understood Campbell and Wallace were interested the money was paid to Campbell. Mr Macdonald objected to this evidence. Witness, continuing, said: On one occasion Campbell aud Wallace came to the yards with n mob of cattlo. Witness asked them if they had any cattle for sale, and they both replied " Yes " Witness entered the cattle that were sold in George Wallace's name, and the proceeds of the cattle were sold were paid to Campbell. Witness understood when he made the entry of the cattlo that they belonged to Campbell and "Wallace. No objection was ever made about the money being paid to Campbell. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution. Mr Macdonald then asked for au adjournment in order that he might have an opportunity of producing evidence with regard to transactions of which evidence had been given by witnesses for the prosecution. The Bench intimated that the case would be adjourned for a week. The accused was admitted to bail in, his own recognisance of £25 and one surety of 1125. A charge of perjury preferred ngaimifc Henry Corish Besnett by George Wallace was adjourned until Thursday next.