THE SANDYMOUNT FEUD.

Otago Witness, Issue 2983, 17 May 1911, Page 9

THE SANDYMOUNT FEUD.

OPENING OF THE DEFENCE. The hearing of the charge of perjury against Jaimes Nyhon arising out of evidence given by him in an assault case, was continued before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, ■S.M., on the 9th inst. The cia.se for the) .prosecution was partly heard on the previous day. Mil* John MacGregor appeared for the informant, David Young, of Sandymouint, and Mr Hanlon for the defence. The first to give evidence was John Young, of Sandymount, in continuation of the case for the prosecution. He gave an account similar to that given when the assault case was heard. In cross-examination by Mr Hanlon, witness said, "I am speaking the truth as near as I can remember." "I'm afraid that is not very near," commented Mr Hanlon. Mr MacGregor promptly rose to protest. " Counsel has bo right," he said, " to keep up a running commentary on the evidence, and I shall protest every time he does it." The evidence of Donald Gunn. a neighbouring farmer, and of Edward Clark, an employee of his, was taken before the luncheon adjournment. John Turner, an employee of Powley and Keast's, deposed that he had been in the habit of visiting Hooper's Inlet during week-ends. He remembered driving down on December 10, when he saw Mr Young, senior, John Young, and Joseph_ Young. John Young and his father were just putting the net away when he arrived about 5.30. John and Joseph Young went away about 6 o'clock, and Mr Young, senior, stayed and had tea with witness. Cluny M'Pherson, a labourer, .residing at Portobello, said he remembered driving over to Hooper's Inlet with the previous witness and Mr Powley on December 10. He corroborated the evidence of Turner. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Hanlon, in opening the case for the defence, submitted that the case should be dismissed. Private prosecutions for perjury where there was feeling existing between the parties were to be viewed with great jealousy. Here they had a case where there had evidently been a feud existing between these two families for a considerable number of months, which had resulted in legal proceedings being taken at various times These proceedings had engendered greater hostility between the parties, arod the people who were prosecuting in this case had been induced to try to find some means of molesting the defendant, and had struck upon this idea of taking perjury proceedings. When proceedings ..for perjury were not instituted by the police, but by people who had bean parties to previous legal proceedings, they should be discocraged, oft at any rate, not. looked upon with any degree of favour. The prosecution had set out to prove that defendant had, upon his oath, made certain assertions as to matters of fact,as part of his evidence, such assertions being known by, him to be untrue, and being intended by him to mislead the court. Now, there was the strongest evidence to show that the defendant honestly and conscientiously believed every word that he said. Even Young himself had admitted that, whether it was truie or not that he had injured the horse, Nyhon (the defendant) had it in his mind that Young did injure it. They did not wish to get out of it, however, on the ground that Nyhon had made a mistake, because Nyhon was prepared to swear again that day that he saw Young strike the horse with a stick, and that other people saw him do it. The prosecution bad to prove that the statement was false, that the defendant knew it was fake, and that he made it intending to deceive the court. What evidence was there to show this? The only evidence of any consequence was that of the Young family. They had given evidence over and over again in these cases, and no great reliance could be placed on them, because a magistrate had told John Young that he did not believe his evidence upon oath, nor the evidence of the witness he had called. In addition, there was the evidence of four outsiders —Gunn, Clark, Turner, and M'Pherson. Had his Worship ever hoard anything more unsatisfactory in his life than Gunn's evidence? It was perfectly obvious that he was the handy man to whom the Youngs went in every case. He (Mr Hanlom) had nothing to say against the young fellow Clark, but Clark had frankly admitted that John Young had told him the day on which the occurrence took place what it was that was supposed to have happened, and where John Young was supposed to have been at the- time. Clark's evidence was no more than the evidence of John Yonug. The other two witnesses had nothing to say that was at all relevant to the inquiry. Turner and M'Pherson knew where Young, senior, and his son John were at 5.30, but the defence wanted to know where they were at 4 o'clock. That evidence was not of t v e slightest value in determining whether or not Nyhon had been guilty of perjury. The only way they oould sheet the charge home was_ to prove an alibi on the part of Young, senior. Nyhon himself, Daniel (his brother), and a man named Cunningham .were prepared to state again that they were present, and saw Young interfere with the horse at 4 o'clock. He would call another man, a personal friend of Young's, who would say that at 4 o'clock Young and Nyhon ware naving an altercation in the vicinity of the horse. Nyhon's brother and Mr Paterson would both say that they were looking down on the bay, and did not see anyone fishing there at 4 o'clock, when Young, senior, and John Young claimed to have been there. The obvious conclusion his Worship must come to was that these two must have gone down to the inlet ai'ter 4 o'clock. All the witnesses connected with the Youngs had more or less of a grudge against the Nyhons, and be submitted that the case ought to be dismissed. Evidence was given by_ the defendant, James Joseph Nyhon, similar to that offered in the previous case, and he was cross-examined at great length by Mr MacGregor. The hearing of the charge of perjury against James Nyhon was continued before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., on the 10th. Mr John MacGregor appeared for the informant, David Young, and Mr Hanlon appeared for Nyhon. Mr Hanlon called Daniel Nyhon, farmer at Sandymount, and a brother of Ihe defendant. Witness gave evidence that he was in company with his brother on December 10, near Young's farm. They oame back with a fencing notice to the Youngs. His brother's horse was tied to the fence, and he saw W. Young go up to the place where the horse was tied and thrust a stick at the horse.

The horse pulled back, and Young threw the stiok after him. The horse then pulled back and broke the bridle-rein. Young went into the dairy, and witness's brother and himself went over to the horse, which was standing in a pool of blood', arid blood was dripping down the reins from a wound in the horse's forehead. They saw the stick which Young had used, and there was horsehair on the end of it. This was about 4 o'clock. Ho had not the slightest doubt that it was Young, sen., who interfered with the horse at that time on that day. His brother went along the road, and after having an argument with one of the Miss Youngs, had some words with Young, sen. He had a good view of the inlet on his way home, and he was sure that no cme was fishing in the channel at the time. Charles Cunningham, farm labourer, said he was working tor Daniel Nyhon in December last. He deposed that on the day of the quarrel he was standing at some lupins near the top of the hiil at Sandymount, when David Young, sen., came out and poked a stick at James Nyhon's horse, which was tied to the fence. Michael Henry Nyhon said he was out looking for sheep from 2 till 3.30 on the day in question, and had a full view of the inlet, and lie observed no boats out fishing. Dugald Paterson, cooper, said that on December 10 he went to Hooper's Inlet. He had been in the habit of going there frequently. On that day he left Dunedin about 1.10 p.m., and arrived at Young's property about 4 o'clock. At Young's place he saw David Young, jun. He also saw James Nyhon holding hishors-j on the road, and a man, whom he was satisfied was Young, sen., was steroding inside the fence within" speaking distance of James Nyhon. There was a wordy warfare going on. He had received a good deal of kindness from the Youngs when he visited the camp, and had no wish to give evidence on the case. CASE DISMISSED. The hearing of the charge, of perjury against James Nyhan was concluded on Wig 11th at the City Police Court before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M. Mr John MacGregor appeared for the informant, David Young, and Mr Hanlon for Nyhon. 'ihe first witness called by Mr MacGregor was Jane Wishart Weir, who said she remembered the day of the quarrel between her brothers and the Nyhons. She described the movements of the Nyhons, which she had watched from the verandah of the house. Her father went to fish shortly before 3 o'clock. He went with witness's brother John. Jessie Pyke Young, wife of John Young, said she was on the verandah on the afternoon of December 10. The Nyhons were near her place, and went away, but came back a second time shortly after 4 o'clock. When they came the second time Young, sen., and John Young were away, naving gone fishing. She did not see Young, sen., again that day. William Townley, farmer at Hignchtt, father of the previous witness, also gave evidence. . His Worship said the defendant m this case was charged with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in having sworn certain statements knowing them to be bo false and with a view to misleading the court. He had to decide in his magisterial capacity whether or not he should commit this man for trial. They had had the whole of the evidence before them, and he was quite satisfied as to the course he should take. He had no hesitation in saying that it was not a case that should go to the Supreme Court. The case would be dismissed. Mr Hanlon: Will your Worship make an order for costs ?

The Magistrate : Can you show me any authority for doing so? I know of none. Mr Hanlon pointed out that the defendant had been put to a good deal of expense in connection with the charge. If he could find any authoriy "he would ask leave to com before the court later. His Worship said he would reserve the question of costs. He said further : "There is one matter that cropped up yesterday that I should like to refer,,to, and that is the matter of the informant in this case going to see the employer of a witness for the defence before that witness cam© into court. I only want to say that I cannot condemn too strongly the action of any man seeing the employer of a witness.