SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2206, 11 June 1896, Page 30

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, June 2. (Before his Honor Mr 'Justice Williams and. a Common Jury.) A CHARGE OF PEHJUUY. Robert Hardie was charged with committing perjury at the trial of himself at the Magistrate's Court on the 27th of March for an assault on Henry Smith Fish by swearing to the effect that at or about five minutes to 9 he was not in Princes street, between Jetty street and Police street, at the time that the alleged assault was said to have been committed or at any time on that evening; Mr B. C. Haggitt conducted the prosecution, and Mr D. D. Macdonald (with him Mr Hanlon) appeared for the "prisoner, who pleaded Not guilty. Twelve persons called upon to act as jurors were challenged by learned counsel for the defence, and six were asked to stand aside by the Crown Prosecutor. The following gentlemen constituted the jury : — William Alderdioe, Robert Smith, William Hunter, JoMn Cadeovr, William M'Lelland, James Chalmers, John Allan, Williawi Gflaister, William Mitchell, James DAvid-iou, William Palmer, and Isaac Walker. All witnesses in the case were ordered out of court. ' J Mr Haggitt, in opening the case for the prosecution, said the jury would gather from the in-formation-that a case was pending in the Police j Court, and that that case was the trial of the accused for an assault alleged to have been committed by him on Mr Henry Smith Fish, who was well known to the jury and many years mayor of Dunedin. The jury had nothing to do with the facts of that assault at all. It was not a question which came into their consideration upon the present occa ion. Nothing was of importance in that case except that there was such a case, and that that.case was being judicially investigated in the Police Court when tbe occurrences to which tha attention of the jury was to be directed took place. So far as that assault case was concerned, the alleged case' was that Mr Fish was sitting in his office writing a letter about five minutes to 9 o'clock on the evening of the 21st of March, when a knock came -to his door. He got up to open the door to see who I it waa, aud immediately the door was opened he received a violent blow on the eye which knocked one of hia spectacle glasses into his 'eye and did him a considerable injury. He slammed the door j immediately and ruehed back to get a stick, and j by the time he returned to tbe door the man had disappeared round the corner. Mr Fish identified ! the person positively as the accused— the person now before the court. The question, therefore, at the trial of the assault upon Mr Fish was whether the person who had assaulted him at that time and in that place was the accused or someone there. Mr Fish had known the accused for years, and he identified him positively as being the person who struck him. At that time there was nobody else known of who had seen the as-ault committed or was in a position to ideutify tuo person accused. The defendant, therefore, in that case went into tbe witness box to give evidence on. his own behalf; and in the evidence he gave he contradicted Mr Fi«h flatly as to his being the person who committed the assault upon him ; and, moreover, he went on to say that he could not have been the person who committed the assault, inasmuch as he was not in that part of Princes street b twean Jetty ; street and Police street on the event g of the 21st of March at all. He further asserted in explanation of why he could not have been in that part of Princes street at the time the assault was committed, that he was down at the railwaydefreshxnent rooms (shortly before half-past 8 on that evening ; that he walked from there to the corner of Crawford street ; that he stood there for a short time until he was a 1 traded by alight in a , tent at he corner of Jetty street ; that be strolled along to the tent and went itito the t nt, where a sunfifth waß being, exhibited ; that he remained in . that tent from about 20 minutes to 9..o'clock in 1 the evening until close upon 10 o'clock ; and that I he then left the tent and went across to the Pier Hotel with some persons connected with the exhibition. The jury would see that it was a most material question upon the trial of the accused, as the defendant in the astault case, for him to prove that he was not in Princes street at the time sworn to as the time the assault was committed. Mr Fish fixed the time distinctly at a>>out five minutes to 9 o'clock. Of course, if the accused couidhaveshownthat he was not in Princes street at five minutes to 9 then Mr Fish must have been mistaken in asserting that he was the parson who had committed the assault upon him. He (Mr Haegitt) would, however, prove that the statement the accused made upon hi* oath on the occasion of his trial was abPobitMy false. He should prove by three or faur wii verses at least th»t the- accused was in Prirites street, and in the j immediate neighbourhood of Mr Fish's »hop, at or very near to the time when the assault was committed. He should call two witnesses who were in his company that evening, and who, he believed, would establish to the satisfaction of the jury that they all met at the Grand Hotel, which they l«ft somewhere about 20 rninutrs to 9 o'clock ; that they walked dowu I'rim-es street to the Gridiron Hotel, which was just a few doors beyond Mr Fiwh's : that thoy stayed there a short time and then walked back past Mr Fish's shop ; that when they got close to Mr Fish's shop the accused left them for a minute or two and the other two walked on ; that presently a person ran past them and turned down the corner of Jetty street, and they followed him ; and that one of them went into th- Pi<*r Hotel and the other into the sun fish tent, and ar lived there, not about: 8 o'clock, but about 9 o'clock Th-- distance from Fish's 'hop to the sunfixh tent was only a distance of a few minutes at v walking; pace. He (Mr Haggitt) should prove not only this, bnt that the men wore met in Princes street at a quarter to 9 o'clock close to Stout, Mondy, and Sim's offices, which w. re about two doors on the "north side of Mr Fish's shop They were met them by Mr Torrance, who had known Mr Hardy for yeai s and who could not be mistaken as to his identity. It would further be proved that the statement that Mr Hardy remained in that tent until close upon 10 o'clock, when he went with somp of the men connected with the exhibition of the fish to the Pier Hotel, was also absolutely untrue. It would be proved that Mr Hardy was in Mr Palmer's hotel in Princes street a' out 20 minutes to 10 o'olock. He was seen there by several people, who would be called as witnesses, and who were thoroughly acquainted with him and could not be mistaken as to his identity. The jury would bo satisfied that the whole story given by the accused was absolutely, distinctly, and deliberately untrue. Mr Haggitt then snoke at some length -on the definition of perjury, and concluded by saying :— 'I he facts which you [have to deal |with are very clear and very simple. Thers was simply the fact whether Mr Fish was assaulted in his shop at five minutes to 9 o'clock on the night of the 21st of March ; and whether the accused was in that part of Princes street at the time that the assault was. committed, about five minutes to 9 o'clock ; or whether he was in the sun fish tent, at the corner of Crawford and Jetty streets. These are the simple facts that you have to deal with, and when evidence is called I think you will have no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion. I Learned counsel then lead the following evidence :— Robert Percy Ward, clerk on the criminal side of the Magistrate's Court, gave evidence respecting the charge of assault H. S. Fish v. Robert Hardie, heard before Messrs Mallard and North. The accused, who was defendant in that' Case, was duly sworn and gave evidence on his own behalf. The evidence in the assault case was not taken down in writing by witness. It was a summary case, and in such cases it was not necessary to write the evidence. The record book of the court was tprHere'l Tirl examined by his Honor and the jury Hfury North deposed that ha was a justice of the peace and one of the justices who heard the assault case Fish v. Hardie. The accused gave evidence in that case after being sworn. Witness took notes, but not all that was said, only the ,gist of the evidence: The notes wre made as the I evidence was given. It was alleged that the assault waß committed on the 2lBt of March a i ■ few minutes before 9 o'clock at Mr Fish's shop in Princes street south." The accused on that occasion swore that he never assaulted Mr Fißh ; that I Mr Fish had told a deliberate lie; that Mr Fish never saw him there, but that he was at the rail- '

way station, and west from there to the hotel and straight to the tent where the a'unflßh was and went inside. This was at about 20 minutes to 9, and he did not, he said, leave the tent till he went to have a drink with tbe men, close upon 10 o'clock. He also repeatedly swore he wai not in Princes street near Stout, Mondy, and Sim's office th»t evening. He futihev stated in his evidence that he did uot say to Eountree he had given Man " a doing." Cross-examined : All these notes were made at the time. The evidence of some of the witnesses was not worth noting. There was far more of Hardies evidence taken down than of the evidence given by the other witnesses. Mr Macdotaald > The reason for taking Hardies evidence down was that you knew what the other witnesses had said?— Yes; because he was the most important witness. Witness continued : Mr Fish's evidence was not so important ; he had only to prove the assault. Witness did not think it nooessary to take the evidence of any of the other witnesses down in the same detailed way. The case hinged on Hardie being in that part of Princes street. He would not say the evidence as taken down was continuous ; it was not jjrord for word. He took the answers to what he considered the most important questions. Mr Macdonald: Are you and Mr Fish pretty friendly ?— I do not know what you mean by asking that question. Is it not a fact that you are very friendly with Mr Fish? -No, I am not very friendly with him. I am friendly as a neighbour but nothing more. Had you a conversation with him on the day before the trial of the caae?— He spoke to me several times about the case. It was considered a most dastardly act. Was that the reason you took such a short note of* Mr Fish's evidence, because he had told you of it before ? -No. He had spoken to you about it?— Yes {or probably I may have spoken to him— seeing him with a. black eye I might first have asked him how he got it. (Wituess continued) : I may have had a conversation with Mr Fish for thraequarters of an hour before. 1 would not contradict anyone who said so. I did not sit until I was asked. It was not my turn to ait that day. The names on the rota were Robert Hay and Charles Haynes. Mr Macdonuld : Is it not the fact that you went early, saw the clerk, and asked to sit ?— Witness :' As I have done many times before. It is a customary thing for justices. Mr Macdonald : Answer my question. His Honor : You can vxplain afterwards. Mr Macdonald : Is it not a fact tbat you went early next morning, after speaking to Mr Fish the day before about the case, saw the clerk, and asked to 'sit?— Witness : No ; I did not ask to sit. I told the clerk that if a justice was wanted I would be willing to sit, as I had done on many occasions before. Mr Miicdouald : I did not ask you that. His Honor : But he can say so. Mr Macdonnld ; But respecting the other occasious you did not have a talk with any of the parties the day before ? Witness continued : It is a common custom for justices to sit on the bench whenever an opportunity occurs. The clerk rang up the justices who were entitled to ait before me, and then asked me to sit when it came to my tura. The clerk asked me to wait. To the best of my mem.iry Mr Ffah did not tell me the day before tbat the justices whose turn it was to sit could not be tbero. Frederick Mallard, a J.P. who also sat at the hearing of the assault case Fish v. Hardie, also gave evidence as to the hearing of the case In cross-examination he said that Mr Chapman's cross-examination of the accused was very severe, and Hardie may have bean taken by surprise. The question was not limited to any portion of Princes street. F. It. Chapman (a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court) gave evidence corroborating that given by Mr North. Cross-examined : Witness said he specified tha block. He did not think he asked the general question if Hardie was in Princes street that evening. He may have asked it in addition to the other questions, but thought it highly improbable he had done so. He felt confident the question was not put in that way, but would not contradict witnesses who said he had put that que tion. Charles Newton Manning (a reporter) deposed that he had reported the case! Fish v. Hurdle, for the Otago Daily Times. He had reported the case partly in lon^haud and partly in shorthand, and after transcribing his notes they were thrown on tho' office floor as waste paper. The " copy " was, he believed, kept for a time, he did not know what length of time, and then destroyed. Mr H^ggitt tendered the Otago Daily Times containing the report. Mr Macdonald objected. His Honor said the paper could not be read iv .evidenc*. and it was extremely doubtful if witness could refer to it to refresh his memory. Witness then gave from memory the substanc* of the evidence given by the accused, and deposed that Hardie denied positively that he was iv the neighbourhood of Mr Fish's shop that night, about the time the assault whs committed. Crovs-examined : He would not nay the question was not put in this form, "Were you iv Princes street tint night." It might have been put in that w*y. R- examined : The accused accounted for his time that evening from 8 30 to past 10 o'clock, and l during the whole of that time he never menj tioned being in the neighbourhood of Princes street. I Henry Smith Fish gave evidence regarding the ! assault committed upon him on the night of the 21st of March last. At the time ho clearly recognised the accused as his assailant. The charge of assault was heard before Mr Mallard and Mr North, and the accused then gave evidence on his own behalf. Witne-s gave bis recollection of the evidence given by the accused in the assault case. Hardie then swore that at no time during that night was he in Princes atreet between' the corner of Jetty street and Police street. Accused also swore that he was not in another parb of Pr.ncas Btieot, near Jacobs's corner, until after 10 o'clock ; in point of fact, he swore that he was in the t>-nt until 10 o'clock. Cross-examined: Witness saw Hardie quite distinctly when the assault was made. Witness would not swear to the shape or colour of the hat or clothes that Hardie was wearing ; he would swear to his face. He was dazed by the blow, and geta shock, but his faculties werenotrend«"Pil at all obscure. Mr Mncdonald : What was your object in- telling the St«r reporter that the asKault was between 9 and 10 o'clock.— Witness : My object was to put Hardie off the scent. My knowledge of the man leading me to believe tbat he would attempt to set up an alibi. I thought he would endeavour to prove an alibi, and would make it suit the time that appeared in the paper. And that was the reason you gave the wrong time in order to mislead Hardie ?— Well, if you like to put it that way. I thought it likely he would see the paper arid thus be bowled out and I think it came out that Way. Your object was to throw him off the time?— My object was to let a man who had committed an offence be punished for it. Did it not occur to you to stick to the truth ?— I have said what happened, and have given the reasons for saying it. Mr Macdonald here read an extract from a speech in which Mr Fish expressed kis gratitude to Hardie for his assistance and hi« esteem for him, and asked witness if he meant that ?—Witness: If that ii what I said, I suppose it ii, making the usual allowance for the exuberance of a successful candidate. A few kindly words in a little speech suits auch an pecasion very well ; but whether they express the deep emotions of the heart I am not prepared to say. The witness was cross-examined at some length. Witness admitted having' spoken to Mr Mendelsohn about Hardie, Mr Mendelsohn telling him that Hardie had given a bill of sale to his own father. Witness did not know that Mr Mendelsohn had snhf-fi-ilied £5 towards a testimonial to him. John P. Bell, shipping agent, deposed that he had known Hardie for five years. On the night of tbe 21st March witness met accused and a Mr i Wood at the Grand Hotel corner at about halfpa,st 8. They cros»ed Princes street and went to the Gridiron Hotel, keeping to the post office side all the way. After spending some 10, minute» in the Gridiron Hotel they- returned along the same side j ' of Princes street, and went to the sunfish teat in I

Jetfcy street. Hftrdie left them midway between Police and Jetty street, near Mr Fish's shop. Afterwards Hardie pawed witness in Princaf street near the corner &i Jetty street, raaniag slowly, Witnois and Wood followed and over* took the accused; who slackened his paea oa turning round Jetty street. It would be, as near as he could remember, about 9 o'clock when they got to the sunfish tent. Hardie did not say wbj he left them, but hung- back and then overtook them running. Rof«renee was made by Hardia .to his staying behind. When overtaken in Jetty street. Hardie said he had had aa argument -with Mr Fish, .Hardie said nothing on leaving thenl to stop behind, and witness did Dot-watea him. A day or two later witness met Bardic, who referred to the- newspaper report 1 , aad'said something to the effect that he (Hardie) won-) oe accused of it. - •

By Mr Macdonald: Witness met .-f/ii-lie chat night at the foot of Hi(fh street. Ho rexsembered giving him a cheque for 30s, but he. did not knavy whether it was on that night. He said fa the lower court : " I believe I lent Hardie 30s that nifiht. I gave him a cheque. The -cheque- would be dated on the day I gave it to him. He saw Hardie on the Monday nijrht and was in the ranfish tent that, night or the Tuesday night. He-had to fix the waning he was with Hardie the best way he could. He did not uee Torrance that night, and would swear that be' did not meet him. If anybody swore it was on the Monday nifht and not on the Saturday night that Hardie w«« with him he would not contradict him. He gave Hardie the cheque in the Gridiron Hotel. To Mr Haggitt : The 21st of March ww on a Saturday. He had a half-holiday that d.»y and spent it at St. Clair and on the Sandhills with hi" wife and children. After tea he came down town, and walked as far as Police street. Tha first persons that joined him were Wood and Hardie, and they joined him at the Grand Hotel. When they joined him, he and they crossed over to the post office and walked as far as the Grid* iron Hotel. He was positive of that. It was not witness's cutttora to post-date or ante-date a cheque. The- cheque was dated on the- 23rd of March. He thought he gave it on that day. The cheque was written in his own office or at the Gridiron- Hotel. -He thought he gave the cheque to Hardie at the Gridiron Hotel. The cheque was taken from Hardies cheque book. It woa on the occasion that Wood was with him that Hardie left witness near Mr Fish's shop, and Wood wai only with him on one occasion. Charles Wood, music teacher, who resided at Invercargil), deposed that he was in Dunedin on Saturday, the 21st March last. He left on Monday by the 8 a.m. twin. He knew Mx Robert Hardie, and was in his- company on Saturday in th« evening. Some part of the day he was with Hardie at the Grand Hotel He left the hotel in his company. He knew the last witnesv, who was with witness and Hardie on the night o! Saturday, the 21st of March. The three of them walked along Princes street. They walked both ways. The first time they went south. He thought they went into a publichouae, but ha could not give the name of the pUca. He did not know how long they remained there When they left the hotel they oame north. They did not keep together all the time. Hardie, ht thought, left them first. It. was somowhere in Princes street. When he left them witnes* and Bell went on, walking northwards. Hardie joined them a few minutes afterwads. When Hardie overtook them he was goin« at a quick pane. He passed them and went round the corner into another street. "Witness and Bell followed round into the same street and overtook him. Afterwards witness went into the Pier Hotel, and Bell and Hardie left him to go to the aunfish. He thought they came back subsequently and joined him at the Pier Hotel ; but he was-not quite sure. They rejoined him somewhere that night. He left them in the street, but he did not know at what time" He got home at a quart™ to 11 o'clock. Witneiiß went home on the Monday, and afterwards Mr Macdoaaid and Mr Hardie saw him at Invercargil), and talked the case 1 over. Mr Hardie talked about the case, but he could not remember what was said. Mr Haegitt : Do you think if you bad not seen Hardie at Invercargill you could have recollected better what took place on- that Saturday night 1 Witness : I could not have said any more than I have said now. In leply to further questions, witnetw said he could not tell at what time or where'he had dinner on Saturday, the 21st of March. He could not recollect whether Hardie had dlaner with him. He was quite, sober. He had known him three or four days before.. He was 1 about with Hardie from 6 o clock that evening. He was either in the Giand Hotel or'Wateon's with him. By Mr Macdonald : Wi'nexs did not remember meeting Hardie that day. He was sure he was with Ravdy oa the Saturday! because he went to Invercargill on the Monday. It was shown to him by Mr Bell's evidence when he was in Invercargill that he had been with Hardie that night, but he knew without tbat. Richard Cameron Torrance, builder, who resided at Kensington, said that on Saturday, the 21st of March, he came in to Dunedin at a quarrer-pa^t 8 p.m. in company with his two daughters. He oame through ihe cr'oket ground and along Crawford street to Police street. ■• He called at hia awn place of I'^iucss, then came along Police strbet to Prinre3 --treet ; thence along Princts street into town. Hehad knownMrHardie for about 15 or 16 years. He also knew Mr Bell He met Mr Hardie that ev*ning exactly oppotite Stout, Mondy, and Sim's office. Hardie was accompanied by two gentle>u«-n, one of whom he faucied was Mr Bell. The other he did notkuow. It was about 20 minutes _fr. 9 when be met them. Hardie and his companions were going south* waids. He had no doubt whatever that two of the three men he saw were Hardie and Bell. By Mr Macdonald : When witness met Hardfe and his companions they were not sober. Stephen D. Cronin, draughtsman in the office of Mr Petre. architect, deposed that he was in Wain's Hotel about 20 minutes to 10 on the night of the 2lst of Mj.rch. He saw Mr Hardie there that night Mr Chapman, schoolmaster, called witness attention to Hardie. Mr Wallace was present at the time. By Mr Macdonald : Witness was in the hotel about five minutes before Hardie' came in. He did not remember who was with Hardie. There were a good few people there. JaT.es Wallace, salesman in Brown, Swing, and Co.'s, deposed as to seeing Hardfe in Wain's Hofcl on Saturday night, the 2lst of March, at about 20 minutes to 10. By Mr Macdonald : Witness had been about 10 minutes in the hotel: and he thought that Hardie was there when he left, at about a quarter to 10. Edward O'Sullivan, carter, in the employ of M'Leod Bros. (Limited), went to the sunfish tent at a quarter-past 9 on the night of the 21st inst. He then saw Hardie, who stayed in the tent . till the quarter to 10 chimes went. Witness and Hardie then we&t to the Pier Hotel. Mr Hasgjtt said he had more fitnesses, but he did not think* there was any use calling them. He would, however, call them if his learned friend wished. William Reid was subsequently called by Mr Haggitt and tendered for 'cross-examination. Witness ntated that he saw Hardie at Jacobs*a corner shortly before 10 o'clock on tbe night In question. John Arthur Brown, who was also called apd tendered for cross-examination, deposed a* to seeing Mr Hardie on the night of the 21st March abreast of Pateraon and Bart's between five minutes to and five minutes past 10. Jesiie Torrance was also called, 'but not examined. - - This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Hanlon opened the case for the defence, and after referring shortly to the evidence given for the Crown he submitted that when- tbe evi-d-nce to be called for tbe defence had been heard th>> j»>y must conclude that the witnesses who ha\ sworn that Hardie Tat in Princes'' street south on the night in question were mistakes as to the ni?ht. The three fishermen who were exhibiting the sunfinh, a Mr Salvini, and a Mr and Mrs Churchill— perfectly iodt-pendeftt wit nesses, who were not friend* of Hardle— would give evidence, and it would be. proved" that at the - time Mr Fish said the accused assaulted him, and at the time the witnesses-Bell and' Wood said that 'Hardie was with them in Princes street, the accuped was actually sitting in the tent where the sunfifih was being oxhibited. If the jury earo~~ I fully weighed the evidence given on both sides I c learned counsel asserted they could not P«6-

Blbly arrive at any other conclusion than that the accused should be acquitted. Tho following witnesses Were then examined ;— 1 Charles Olson deposed that on the 21st of March he exhibited a sunftsh in a tent on the reclaimed land. At 8.25 he looked at his watch, and Suggested that as it was getting late they should let soma boys in for nothing, remarking that they would then go away and talk about the fish. This Vfns done, and shortly afterwards Hardie came in. Witness, who was standing at the door of the tent receiving the money, saw Hardie from time to time in the tent— whenever ho looked In,— and Wai satisfied that Hardie did not leave until about 10 o'clock, when he took witness to tho Pier Hotel for a drink. Witneaa did not see the accused again that night. Cross-examined : Witness did. not know Hardie before that night. The accused stayed for an hour and a-half looking at thenah. .. He could not tell of anyone else who had been in the tent that night for an hour or an hour and a-half looking at the fish. He could not say whether Hardie was sober or whether he had. a companion. He was sure it was not 7.25 when he let the boys in, and it was close on 10 o'clock when he left Hardie at the hotel. Stentiford went first, and then relieved him at the tent. It might have been a misunderstanding for him to say that he went firPt. John Hanson, a wharf labourer, .deposed that he was a partner with the last witness in the exhibition of the suafish. Witness gave corrobo- . rative evidence. The accused, he deposed, went to the tent at 8.30 and did not leave until 10 o'clock, so far as he (witness) could remember. Witness was out of the tent for a short time occasionally sending boys away, but was not outSide for more than live minutes at any time, and each time he returned Hardie was there.. ] Cross-examined : Witness said he saw Olsen's watch at the time mentioned, and it was then 26 minute^ past 8 o'clock. - He did no t> think anyone was with Hardie when lie went to the tent. Dlxen^was left in charge of the tent, and wituese, Sullivan, and Stentiford went with Hardie to the hotel first. ■ ' After witness and Stentiford had been to the hotel they returned find relieved Plsen, who then went to the hotel. Hardie remained in the tent f6r- an hour and a-half. No one else remained for that time. Re-examined : Sullivan stopped in the tent a good time, and so did Salvini and the Churchiils. At this stage his Honor suggested an adjournment. , Mr Macdonald aaid he had four more witnesses to call, and asked that the accused should be admitted to the same bail as formerly. Mr Haggitt, in reply to his Honor, said the Crown did - not \ aiae any objection, and the same b&il was allowed. . • The further .hearing of the case was adjourned until 10.30 next morning, and the couit rose at 6.45 p.m.

v Wednesday, June 3. • BOBBERY FHOM THB PBHSON. James Gray, previously convicted of stealing a watch, was brought np for sentence. Mr Hanlon applied that prisoner be released en probation. His Honor laid the probation officer's report was not altogether satisfactory. The police reporbed s th»t the prisoner was the associate of bad and doublFul character?. His Honor : Ido r<ot thmk I should bs justified in admitting the prisoner to probation in face of the 'probation officer's and the police reports. Moreover, the crime itself is one that indicates criminal habits on the part of accused. However, it is his first conviotion, and he has betn in giol for two months, and the prosecutor has recovered his property. I shall consider these things in passing sentence. (To the prisoner :) The sentience of the court is thnt you be imprisoned in the common gaol for a term of six months, and be kept to hard labour. PERJURY. The hearing of the charge of perjury againit Robert Hardie wad resumed at 10.30. j Mr B. C. Haggitt prosecuted for the Crown, and Messrs D. D. Kacdonald and A. C. Hanlon 'appeared for the accused. Tha following witnesses were examined :— William Stentifor.d, wharf labourer, deposed, •he had been living in Dunedin for about 40 years. He and Olsen and Hanson caught the sunfish and exhibited it. Hardie went to the tent,at nearly as witness's 'ideas went, at from half-patt 8 and a quarter to 9 on the evening of the 21st March. The only way he had of fixing the time was that the town clock struck 8 aa he was between the Colonial Bank and the tent, going W the tent. Hardie arrived while witness was at the tent. O!sen and Hansen were there at the time. If they said it was half-past 8 when Hatdie arrived, witness would not dispute the sUttment. Httrdie talked to witness during the evening, and left just upon 10 o'clock, when witness went to the Pier Hotel to .have a drink "with him. Witness did not thiuk .that Hardie could have been away from the tent for,»ny length of time in the evening. If he had been away long witness would have misted him.— Cross-examined : Witness, Hanaen and Sullivan accompanied Hardie to the hotel. Witness did not think it was between 8.45 and 9 p.m. when Hardie arrived, but he did not look at the time. Hardie made himself conspicueus by sitting on the lorry and by poking the fish's eye in. Witness remarked to him that he might injure the fish for museum pur* posei. Witness did not notice that Hardie was. drunk ; he talked right enough. Witness was not a judge. - Arthur Salvini, tn aster Tn music, deposed that he remembared^going to the sunflsh tent on the evening of the 21st March. He started from Watson's about 20 minutes past 8 ; vent down very quietly, and supposed he - got there about the half-hour. He noticed the time by the Colonial Bank clock as he stood at Watson's. He saw Hirdie at the tent. Hardie arrived some time ofter witness. Witness shook hands with Hardie f.n i fpoke to him. Witness also spoke to the fitter men. He had seen them catching the fi hin the morniDg. Witness spoke twice to Hardie, and remained there, he should suppose, quit 9 half an hour — he had no doubt about the time — leaving Hardie there. Witness was subf tanaed for the assault Case in the lower court, but did not attend, having to leave for Christchurch ou a professional engagement. — Cross-examined : He went into Wain's Hotel on the way to the tent and hid a, drink. He did not t»lk to the barmaid. He did not remain two-minutes. It was when witness saw the report of the case in the papers that he remembered baying seen Hardie in the tent. John Churchill, labourer, of Kensington, was "another fresh witness. Examined by Mr Hanlon, he said that he went to see the sunfish on the 21st Ma; eh, leaving his home in Grosveoor street at 8 30 and crossing the reclaimed ground by the, City Sawmill. He fixed the time by his own clock, which he went to work by. He got to the teat about 13 minutes to 9. That; time he fixed by hear- ' ing the clock chime the quarter, His wife heard it. When he went in he saw Hardie sitting on the lorry. Hardie asked him for a light ; that was what called his attention to Hardie. He stayed at tbe tent about 24 minutes. .On leaving be went up Jetty street to Briacoe'a corner, aud then heard the clock chime a quaver paufcJS. Hardie w&s in the tent when witness left, Hardie, was there all the time that witness remained. Witness went along to the Octagon to hear Mr Ready talk, but r when he got' there M^ Ready was gone, Sad witoes* went away. It was then half-past me. — In crors examination, witness s»id*that he and his wife.were at Sfcronach's cocner when Mrs Churchill ,made the remark about the «look chiming the quarter. A few deys af tor.-

wards Mr Hanlon andL-Mr Hardie were passing witness's place when' the latfceV recognised witness as the man from whom he got the match in the tent. Mr Hanlon asked witness if he recognised Hardie, and witness replied that he did. Mr Hanlon then said that they might I want witness to come to court. That was all that passed. - Nothing whatever was said as to the time. Annie Churchill, wife of last witness, gave similar evidence. Cross-examined : Witness said she had not talked this matter ov«r with her husband. MriHaggifcfc t Have you not compared notes with him p Witness : Very little. Her attention was attracted to Hardie by bis asking her husband for a match. After that they did not speak again. This concluded the evidence for the defence. Mr Macdonald addressed the jury for tho accused, and Mr Haggitt replied. His Honor, in the course of summing up, said : Mr North's conduct has been commented upon. Mr North, though his name was not on the rota for the day, went down to the court, as he had done on former occasions, and offered his services. Of course there is no objection at all because a man happens to be a justice of the peace to his talking to a friend of his who happsos to have been assaulted, but it is obvious, gentlemen, that after having received a detailed statement ef the griefs of his friend j he should avoid, if possible, sitting on a case in which his friend is interested, and certainly should not go down and volunteer his services if they are wanted. That Mr North was indiscreet in so doing |s obvious: there is no need to toll you that, but that has but slight bearing on the present case, because all you have to determine in the present case, bo far as Mr North is concerned, is as to whether the statement he now makes as to what Hardie skid on that ocoasion it true. He says that he took detailed notes of Hardies evidence because Hardie was a most important witness. It seems to me that is natural. He would hear the case for the prosecution first, and then when the man c*me forward to defend himself he would note down carefully exactly what he said. However, that is the re»son he gives for taking Hardies evidence iv detail. His Honor having gone through the, evidence and commented upon it, concluded by saying : The burden of proof inthie, as in all eases, lies upon the Crown to satisfy you that the offence was committed. There is, however, thi* difference in perjury : that one witness is not sufficient. There must be two witnesses, or one witness and material facts ia corroboration of that witness. You have to be satisfied that the accused in the Magistrate's Court made upon oath a statement in substance the same as tbat which in -the indictment he is alleged to have made. In order to convict the accused you have to be satisfied, 100, not only tbat he made the statement, bnt that the statement was known to him to be false, and was intended by him to mislead the court. The jury retired to consider their verdiot at half-past 3 o'clock. At 9 o'clook the jury were asked if they had agreed upon their verdiot, and replied that they had not, and that there vra<» no prospect of agreement. v The courb was then adjourned until half-past 10 o'clock nexb (Thursday) morning.

Thtjbsday, Jdne 4. PERJURY. Roharb Hardie, whose trial on a oharge of perjury in connection with the assault case Fish v. Hatdie was concluded on the previous afternoon, again appeared before tho courb. The jury, being unable to agree, had been locked up all night. On the court resuming all the jurors answered to their names, and on being asked if they had agreed, The Foreman said : I regret having to report that the jury cannot agree upon a verdict. His Honor : The only alternative is then to discharge you. Having ascertained that the services of the gentlemen who had been locked np all night in this case, could probably be dispensed with without inconvenience to the court;, his Honor discharged these jurors from further attendance. Mr Haggitt asked his Honor to fix the time of the new trial for, Monday next. His Honor : Very well, tbere will be another jury and a fresh trial on Monday nexb. On the application of Mr Macdonald the accused was again admitted to bail, in his own bond for £100, and his fathers bond for £200. After the interlude whioh was aff oi dod to Mr Justice Williams on Friday and Saturday by the hearing of the application in Chambers for the sanction of the court to the sale by the official of the Colonial Bank of a portion of the bank's assets, tbe criminal sittings of the Supreme Court were resumed on Monday forenoon, when Robert Hardie was for the second time put on his trial for perjury, the jury on the former trial last week having disagreed. Nine jurymen were challenged by Mr Macdonald on behalf of the accused, and no' fewer than 11 were ordered to stand aside by the Crown prosecutor ; but one of the latter was eventually included in the jury, the. panel being-exhausted when only 11 jurors had* taken their seats in the box. The case for the prosecution was not concluded until late in the afternoon. The evidence for the defence having been taken on Tuesday, and counsels' addresses delivered, the jury retired shortly after 4 o'clock to consider their verdiob, returning to couit in about 40 minutes with a vcrdiot of " Not guilty," and accused was therefore discharged. HOOSEB REARING AND THEFT, Robert Gillies wan indicted upon a charge of having on the 10th of May broken and entered the dwelling house of Mary Thompson at Oamaru, and having stolen therefrom £1 17 am 'money, and a purse, the property of Georgina Reid. Mr H. G.C. Harvey appeared for the accused, who pleaded "Not guilty." The Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case, said that on the night of Sunday, May 10, Mrs Thompson (a widow),. her daughter, and Miss Reid, a friend, locked up their dwelling, which is at the corner of Eden and Warren streets, I and went to St. Paul's Church in Coquet street. As they approached the house on their return at About 8 o'clock they saw a light in the upstairs room occupied by Miss Reid. This rather alarmed them, and they watted till someone came air ng before going inside. The first person to arrive "was a Mr Murray. Mrs Thompson spoke to him, and he went to the door in the garden while Mrs Thompson went to the Warren street door and the others repaired to the Eden street entr&nce. Mrs Thompson found the door open, and 'hearing a noise, called out "Who's there?" whereupon a man rushed out, jumped upon her, and said that if she interfered with him he would cub her throat. He threw' her against the gate, thereby blocking his own exit. Then he tried to climb the hedge, but could, not do so. Presently Mr Murray and Mr Br'ownlie (the latter a neighbour who came across the street to see what was up) caught hold of the man and .held him. He begged to be let off, and at last said . he gave in, butimmediaiely called-out : "Mates, mates, help," ez Kometkin^of that kind, upon

which another man came up and struck Murray in the faoe and attftoked him with stones, and la the oonfuiion both men got fres. Mrs Thompson and her daughter would swear that Gillies was the man who came out pf the house. Inquiries showed that a hat picked up close to the gate was 6 new hat bought the previous day by Gillie«,,and witnesses would say that the man who ran away was at the tirao h&tlens. Miss Reid's purse, emptied of everything but a sixpence, was found in Ribbell street, on a section which was in a dirsct path from Mra Thompson's houie te the residence of Gillks's , father, where accused was taken half an hour after the man escaped. In the court below another person named May was charged with Gillies, but for tome reason or other whioh he (Mr Haggitt) did not understand the magistrate had thought fib to discharge May, and the jury had only G.-llies to deal with. He (Mr Haggitt) thought that May ought to have been there too. Mrs Thompson said in the course of hrr evidence that she had no doubt vlntsvL-r that Gillies was the man who oame out of the house. She recognised his face. All that she was at any time in doubt about was as to his name. The Gillies family bore a good reputation. Witness' did not know Robert at the time. She had said that if she had known Robert Gilließ was the man who did it she would not have said anything about the matter. Meta Thompson, Qeorgina Reid, and Gordon L. Murray were also examined before luncheon. The last-named said in cross-examination that be had known Gillies for a number of years and used to go to suhool with him, but he did not at the time 'recognise the person he caught hold of.' The other witnesses for the Crown. , were William Biownlio, George Harris, Winter H. Webber, Robert Hewitt, Sergeant Dwyer, and Detective O'Brien. Mr Harvey addressed the jury for the accused. His Honor having summed up, the jury retired, and in 10 minutes returned with a verdict of •• Not guilty." The accused was then disschavged. KOBBEKY FHOM THE PERSON. Annie Con way was charged with having on the 15fh May, sst Oamftru, sto'en £13 in money from the person of Angus Hewitt M'Leod. The accused pleaded Not guilty, and was defended by Mr Harvey. Mr Haggitt, whe conducted the case for the Crown, stated that this was an ordinary case of robbery in a brothel. There were no witnesses present, and the money had not been recovered. The evidence of the prosecutor wonld be to the effect that the prisoner had t»ken his purse out of his pocket, run away with it, and subsequently denied all knowledge of it.Evidence was given for the Crown by the prosecutor, who, in cross-examination, admitted having said to counsel for the defence after the case was he*rd in the court at Oamaru-: "I oan pay you bettor than the other side ; throw them over aud lake my case, and I'll pay you well." Allan Glynn (a cab proprietor) and Detective O'Brien also gave evidence. The Foreman, after consulting the jurors', before leaving the box announced that the jury had agreed to a verdict of " Not guilty," but, one of the jurors dissenting, the jury retired at half-past 4- o'clock, and as 5 returned a verdict of " Not guilty," The accused was then discharged', and the courb was adjourned until 10.30 on Monday.

The Commissioner of Grown Lands notifies that several sections on the Fomahaka estate will be open for application for lease on the 7th prox.

Attention is drawn to an advertisement elsewhore relating to Professor Loisette's system of As3imilative Memory Training through thcbianch established in Sydney. The system can be learnt by those who live at a distance by correspondence, and it is confidently stated that it is only necessary to follow tha directions which are given to acquire not only a new memory but an improvement in all the mental powers. Those who have gone through, the courae express themselves well satisfied with the result, and applications for instruction are being received from all parts of Australasia.