THE MYERS CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7978, 6 April 1904, Page 3

THE MYERS CASE.

« PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT. At the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Messrs W. Hargteaves,^ A. Scott and E. W. Samuels, f. Wilding and F. Toanlinson were charged, on the information of John Scott Myers, with having conspired together to cheat and defraud him, between May, 1893, and January, 1897. Before the case was called on, Mr Wilding slated that he was engaged in the arbitration proceedings in connection with the tramways, and asked that he should be allowed to be absent. Mr Cassidy would! appear, for him: The Bench allowed Mx Wilding to. retire. * Mr Cassidy asked that- ih«w- prosecutor should give some grounds for his charges. Mr Myers said that he was making the charge because the two accused had conspired to grossly wrong- him. He would prove that by document? and by witnesses. He was prepared to make a sworai statement. * ' Mr Cassidy asked that Mr Myers should put s6me facts be-fSre the Court. The prosecutor should not limit his «h«rg«s to vague statements. The Bench said that Mr Myers ought to do as Mr Cassidy had requested. Mr ALyers said .that he 'had- documents that would prove everything. The Bench said that it was usual m a case of that nature for. the prosecutor to state the grounds of the charges. Mr Myers made a lengthy statement, and detailed' proceedings that wad taken .place in the Court in regard to disputes 'between him and the defendants. Mr Cassidy said that he failed to see m Mr Myers 5 •history-, of the case evidence of conspiracy. There was not a scrap of evidence of criminality. There had 'been a great deal of litigation, extending over.onany years, and Mr Myers had lost all along, the line. There should be some grounds on which- to start the case. The Stipendiary Magistrate in Christchurch had stated' that the proceedings were of a malicious nature. It Was merely waste of time to go on' with the case. Mr Myers said that Mr Haselden, the Magistrate, was not acquainted with the case. The Bench said' that -nothing had been submitted that was likely to substantiate the charges made. Mr Myers was bringing a serious charge, and there should be something to substantiate it. Mr "Myers maintained that he 'had ample evidence to prove his case. The doctiments he possessed proved collusion. He had made out. a prima facie case, and it ought to be heard. The Bench said that it was -unanimous in wishing to give Mr Myers full opportunity to substantiate the charges. Mr Myers commenced to go over the Court proceedings, but Mr Cassidy objected to him reading from papers. The Bench said that Mr Myers would have to place some actual evidence before the Court. Mr Myers, an the witness-box, said that on June 19, 1893, he had received a cheque, and on June 21 lie handed the cheque to Tomlinson to bind a bargain of the sale 'of 5 acres and 28 perches of land. On that day Tomlinson wrote out two agreements. The witness received the receipt for £5 for the cheque. On August 29, 1893, he brought together Tomlinson and another man, and on that day another agreement was made, and £266 was paid. He showed the receipt for the £5 to Mateon. and Co., and he signed the agreement. On November 7, 1893, he made an agreement with Matson.and Co. to rent the land for £3 an acre. On September 26, 1894, he received a summons for £25 rent that he was supposed to hold. The case wa-s heard on October 16. Neither Tomlinson nor Mat&on and Co. were present. He submitted £21, j the rent owing, and Mr Beetham adjourned [ the case to allowi a friendly agreement to [' be made, and * ns case was adjourned to ! October 30. Matson and Co. and Tomlinfion were present at the hearing of the case. Wilding 'amended the claim to £21, but still persisted in hearing the evidence. Tomlinson denied that there had ever been any agreement such a 6 the first one. Tomlineon had denied that he had made an agreement with witness about anything. After the case was concluded, judgment having been given against witness, Tomlinson and Matson and Co. went to Wilding's office and submitted-^- — ■ Mr Cassidy maintained that Myers did not know what had been submitted. Continuing, witness said that on November 2 he received a letter from Wilding. Me Cassidy asked that the letter should be produoed, and witness said that |he would endeavour to obtain it. In the Court' he was charged with possession of the (property and with- a sum of £4. Tihe case was I adjourned again to allow of a friendlyn settlement. He signed & pa/per in Wild-t in^s office that was reported .to ihim as feeing a settlement. After the adjournment Wilddßjj came to court and- gnxtuoed the ;

letter, and obtained 1 judgment against witness to give up possession within seven days. The property was then let to someone else. On July 14, 1896, he swore an information for perjury against Tomlinson. He was tried, and he admitted' that a document was in his own handwriting. Mr Bishop impounded the document. WildfHg had the document in his hand, knew the contents of it, and a few days after, the case against Tomlinson bad been dismissed the witness received a writ for malicious prosecution, the charge being that he had caused Tomlinson to lose £30 out of pocket, and had injured 'him to the extent of £250. The case was tried before Mr Justice Denniston and a special jury of four. The letter dated November 2, 1894, was submitted as evidence against him. Mr Cassidy again urged that the letter should be produced. / Continuing, Mr Myers said that a document had been withheld from Mr Justice Denniston, and the special jury gave a verdict against witness for £40 on the letter produced. Mr Cassidy examined the witness, who said that it was eight years since the business transaction took place. In January, 1895, lie had laid the information against Crozier for abusive language, and on ' January 3, 1895, he laid information far perjury against Tomlinson, but Mr Bishop refused to issue the summons. Witness brought an action against Tomlinson, on October 25, 1895, for work done. Decision was given against him. On December 3, 1895, the same charge was brought by him against Tomlinson, and - Mr. Beetham gave the case against the witness. On July 14, 1896, he laid a second information for perjury against Tomlinson. Mr Ayres, J.P.. took the case, and it was heard by Mr Bishopy and the information was dismissed). Tomlinson then sued witness for malicious prosecution and obtained £40 damages. During the progress of the case, he mortgaged his property to fight a ease in the Supreme Court. In October he becam? a bankrupt on his own motion. His creditors would have received 20s in the £ if an agreement had been carried out. He had not paid Tomlinson 20s in the £, and the Judge therefore refused his discharge. He applied to Mr Haselden for a summons against Tomlinson, and Mr Haselden, after considering a statement, gave reasons for a refusal of the application. Mr Haselden said that the proceedings were malicious. Six Justices of the Peace refused to sign the Information. He applied to five in Christchurch, and' then went to Lyttelton. If he had' failed in the latter place he would have gone to Dunedin. The Judge in his remarks said that the whole of ibis difficulties had been caused &y his having brought what an intelligent'jury, after careful trial, found to be an absolutely false and malicious charge against another person, and that : he had supported that charge by what the jury had found to be a series of deliberate perjuries. On the Court resuming after lunch, Mr Myers asked for an adjournment. The Bench, in reply to a remark by Mr Myers,, said that it had -refused to sign documents in reference to the case at the present stage. Mr Myers said that it was impossible for him to go on with the case without the documents, and an adjournment was necessary in order to obtain them. Mr Cassidy objected to any adjournment. The whole thing was malicious. Every chance had been given to Myers to bring evidence. There was not a scrap of evidence of any kind against either Wilding or Tomlinson. ' The Bench said that it must decline to adjourn the case. Myers said that he would proceed, but under protest, and he called evidence. George Cox, a farmer at Marshlands, examined by Myers, stated that on October "30, 1894, 'he heard Tomlineon give evidence in Court. He heard Tomlinson say that he had' never made an agreement with Myers in his life. Tomlinson denied that the agreement of June 21, 1893, was in existence. Tomlinson said that if Myers did not pay he would have him " put over the hill." The claim was amended to £21, at Wilding's request. On one occasion, in Court, he remembered Mr Beetham adjourning one of the caees In another case Wilding said he had documentary evidence to prove that Myers was a rogue.