POLICE COURT.

Western Star, Issue 1576, 4 July 1891, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

Tiiuksuav, 2xu JuiiV, (Before Messrs Inn hone and Hamilton, J's T\) pbrjtuiv. Ly Mut and Ly Her, trading at Bound Hill under the title of Qni lling v. Edward 0, Roberts, of Round Hill, for wilful and

corrupt perjury. Mr O’Reilly appeared for the prosecution ; Mr Macalister for accused. The information charged the accused that he did on the 25th June last, commit perjury in the R.M. Court, Riverton, in a case Roberts v. Qui King, by swearing that Ly Mut did not on the 16th January pay to him the sum of £4, the fact of s'noh payment being material to the issue then before the court. Ly Mut (one of the firm of Ly Mut and Ly Hee) stated in ex>oxination that his firm ha 1 dealt with Roberts for some years, supplying him with goods and purchasing firewood, &0., from him. On the 16th January last Roberts brought him a bill for £7 7a 6d and received from him the sum of £4 on account. Roberts put a stamp on the bill and gave receipt for amount received. After this Roberts sent a bill for balance, £3 2s 6d. showing a discrepancy of five shillings, Accused came to his store with Koe Hing on the 14th June, and asked to see the bills. He brought out the bills. Roberts took them and put them in his pocket, saying that they were too old and were no good, and then went away. Accused afterwards sued witness for £8 Is, bnt did not give credit for the £4. There had been a payment of £1 made before Roberts received the £4. Witness had put in a sot-ofi of £4 14s 6d; paid 7s 6d into Court, and treated the £4 as a payment. He produced bis account books. Crossexamined by Mr Macalister, witness stated that the first account sent by him to Roberts was for £2 6s ; the second was for £4l4s 61. There was some chains and a swingle tree that had been lent to Roberts in 1898, and as they were worn out Roberts agreed to pay for them. There was also money lent, and other goods had been supplied since the first account had been rendered. Cong Krn and Lv Hak were in the store when the £4 was paid to Roberts. Had never had any trouble with accused before. Ly Hak was in his (witness’) employ. Kuew nothing about any row between Ly Hak and nocus r d. Mr Instone here remarked that evidence abont disputed accounts was not relevant to the ease, and that the question of accounts had been threshed out in the civil action which had been decided. Ly Hak stated that he saw Ly Mut pay Roberts the £4 in notes, saw Roberts put » stamp on the bill and write across the stamp. Cong Keu gave similar evidence. Tbert was no dispute when Ly Mat paid the money. The transaction took place on Friday, the 16th January at about 7 p.m. Ho saw no other papers and had not seen tho bill since, Kea Hing, of Riverton, gardner, gave evidence that on June 14th last Roberts met him on the corduroy near Canton and asked him to accompany him to Ly Mat’s store to act as interpreter about some accounts Roberts asked to sea tho bills. Ly Mill brought out two bills one of which had a stamp on it. Roberts said “ That bill too old now, no more good ” rolled up both bills, put them in his pocket and than wont away. The evidonoa of Ly Chao, who was present in the store when Roberts was there with Kee Hing, corroborated tho statement of the latter. Ly Fun said, chat he met Raborts the corduroy, when Roberts said that Qui Hing s accounts wore wrong and asked witness to go with him to the store. Roberts had with him Ly Mat’s account for £3 6s and said he wanted to ray it. W’tnes 0 , who can write English), was asked to receipt the hill on Ly Mut’s behalf. Ly Mut had no stamp hut bought one from Roberts. Ly Mnt told witness nob to receipt the bill until the money was paid. Roberts said “ I can go into Court now and swear that I paid that bil 1 ,” bo then took both bill and money away. In crossexamination witness stated that he did not know that Ly Mut owed Roberts money, nor did he see Ly Mut offer to pay him any. Had not been a partner of Ly Mut’s for some years. _ Mr A. M. Eyes, Clerk of the RM. Court, deposed that on the 25;h June list a case was heard before Mr Rawson, R.M., Roberts v. Qui Hing. Roberts gave evidence in the case. Roberts staled on oalh that ha had not received tho £4 on tho 16th January Mr Eves produced tin plaint note copy of summons and plaint book. The civil record brisk was also produced, showing Mr Rawson’s decision, being judgment for plaintiff for amount paid into Court, only plaintiff to pay defendant’s costs, £4 15s. This was the ease for the complainant. Mr Macalister contended that the case should be dismissed on any one of three points. (1) That it had not been proved that Riverton is within the jurisdiction of the R.M. (3) That, there was no proof that accused had been sworn nr if so of the nature of the oath administered. (3) That there a discrepancy between tho dates of the plaint note and the plaint book, which must be fatal. The Bench, however, did not entertain Mr Maca'ister’s objections, and held that it was a case for a jury. They committed accused for trial, allowing bail; accused in £SO, and two sureties of £35 each. Bail was forthcoming.