The Hutt Tarring Case.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XVIII, Issue 1743, 7 October 1885, Page 2

The Hutt Tarring Case.

The Grand Jury have found “a true bill” against “Jim Walden” in the Hutt tarring case and he stands his trial in the Supreme Court to*morrow (Thursday). Great efforts have been made to get the charge against Walden quashed. His Honor, Mr Justice Richmond made a pointed reference to the case in his charge to the Grand Jury. “In this case,” remarked the learned Judge, “ the depositions taken in the lower Court show that several of the witnesses for the prosecution were most unwilling witnesses—the evidence had to be dragged out of them. 1 mention this matter to you, gentlemen, because it places you in a position of difficulty, fince in the exercise of your functions you have not, as you are aware, ihe advantage of the presence of any prosecutor —and therefore there is no one to indicate to you w hat questions ought to be asked. In general this does not occasion any difficulty, because the witnesses for the prosecution are all more or less willing witnesses ; but where it ip otherwise you will see that there is some difficulty in exercising your functions. I ' think it my duty, to call your attention to this point, becaJ* ftit obvious-I make no conjecture, because uA j 3 llot the J^ Ce for conjecture—it is obvious, on n.,. of tha depositions, that many of the witnesses were must unwilling witnesses. You will have to judge fur yourselves, therefore, as there is no prosecutor present, how far it may be necessary to go in your deliberations.”

Well, the Grand Jury retired, called witiieasess and deliberated over the case. The foreman, Mr Joe Dranstield, fought tooth and nail to have “ no b 11 ” found. But the most of the members of the Grand Jury were “ not for Joe ” and *e he was

overruled, and “ a true bill ” was found against Walden by 18 to 5. It will lie remembered that Mr E. T■ billon, the editor of the Evening Post, wassubpoeuad as a witness for the prosecution, but when before the Resident Magistrate, he refused to answer questions as to matters which had become known to him '.purely in his journalistic capacity. Mr Gallon was quite right in taking up this position, but he might have been committed all the same forjthe refusal to give evidence, only Mr Travers declined to push matters. Mr Gillon is now again subpoened to give evidence—this time in the Supreme Court—so it remains to be seen what view Mr Justice Richmond will take of the matter should Mr Gillon still refuse to give evidence. It is understood that Mr Gillon will again decline to give evidence on the grounds which he previously set forth, and has made up his mind to bear the consequences in the shape of a possible committal to prison. We shall look with much interest for the outcome of this business. The case against Walden on the felony charge—that of attempting to choke Muir—is weak, but Mr Travers says he has now additional evidence on that point. The minor charge is one of “ assault,”