SUPREME COURT.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11059, 22 September 1903, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honor the Chief Justice.) . TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1903.

ALLEGED PERJURY.

Mary Helen Cottcell, charged with having committed par jury on the 27 th 3uly at the Magistrate's Court in Wauig^nui, pleaded not guilty. Mr Wray appeared, w,ith Mr Trcadwell, for the defence. The following jury were empanelled:, — Messrs H. Rice (foreman), P. Murray, J. Ashwell, L. J. White", T.Murray, R. Allen, D. Grant, J. Watson, E. Ellory Gilbert, J. 11. Jensen/ G. H. Moss, D. Kendrick. ■ The Crown' Prosecutor explained the facts of the case, which have already been published in our columns, and called, E. Barton (Clerk of the Court), J. H, Carrad (late Assistant Clerk in the Court), Louis Cohen (who acted as counsel for Lowry in the Lower Cburt), and James Lowry.' , C. C. Kettle, Stipendiary Magistrate at Wanganui, stated that he sat m the case Lowry v Cottrell on the 27th of July, when the plaintiff claiffifcd for balance of wages .alleged to be due. Remembered a pass-book being produced by Mrs Cottre.ll, who swore that she had never paid McAllister any wages and had never employed him. McAllister, she said was employed by Lowry. Mrs Cottrell's attention was called to the hand-writing on the cheqiie butts, and after«the.cheques were produced she adhered to the statement that she did not employ McAllister. Cross-examined. —Mrs Cottrell produced the pass-book as part of her eas»». Witness very likely asked Mrs' Cottrell some auestions. She stated that Lowry had a«ked her to- employ McAllister, and. that she had told Lowry she could not afford to do f?o. She sai«l shp had not, with her own hands, paid McAllister any monoy,' and harl put the name McAllister in the passrbook in order to show Lowry where the money had crone to. Remembered Mr Cohen objecting to Mrs Cottrell nayinsr anything that shp no* know of her own personal knowledge. No obiection whatever "was made to thp production of the cheque-book. Everything flint was asked for was produced at oTioe. Had no clear recollection as to what had been said with regard to the writing on th*» butts. After the cheoues were produced witness examined Mr Cottrell with regard to the alterati6ns and additions to the butts. Was. quite certain that both Mr and Mrs Cottrell were re-catled after the cheques were produced. James Lowry, sworn, said that he was engaged by the accused as general station hand, While employed by her he obtained her consent to engage McAllister for two weeks to assist him in fencing. Mr •Cottrell told witness to give McAllister a cheque for .£l, which cheque witness obtained from Mr CottrelJ. That was the,, only- money witness handed to McAllister. The Court adjourned'at one o'clock aud resumed at two, when the examination of Lowry was continued. Witness said he never suggested that any money should be deducted from his wages as payment for McAllister. Cross-examined, witness said the ra'ie of .wages was never mentioned until he asked for a setlement. and Mrs Cottrell first knew of it on the day he was dismissed. Jtemembered being pressed in the Lower Court as to why some leaves in his d'ary were uiissin«?, and he ndmitted giving two different reasons to account- for tiifir disappearance. Thomas McAllister, sworn, stated tbnt Mrs Cottreli asked him to go up on to the farm ,for a fortnight nt 25s per week, and received 10s and <£1 from Mr Cottrell and a cheque for a pound from Lowry. (Loft sitting.)