MAGISTERIAL.

Waikato Times, Volume LVII, Issue 8098, 9 January 1907, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

HAMILTON— TUESDAY

(Before Messrs W. A. Graham and W* C. Divis, J'g.p.) ALLEGED PEEJURT. James Ross was charged with that on January 4lh,_ last he did commit perjury in a judicial proceeding to wit an enquiry held by the coroner by swear- : •' I did not hcnr of a proposal to hold a meeting to see what evidence should be given, J did not propose it myself, and it any witness swore I did propose it, she would be telling a lie,'' well knowing such statement to b« untrue, and making it with intent to deceive. "

Sergeant Hastie prosecuted, and Mr Gillies appeared for tne defence. Sargeant Hastie stated that accused was one of the witnesses at the inquiry into the recent fire at the Taranaki boardinghouse ihe alleged perjury was in answer to a question put by him. Br Mr O-illies: The inquiry was held by Mr Bond (coroner). The coroner did not Mminister the oath. It was administered by him.

J. S. Bond, District Coroner, stated that accused said: "I did not hear of a proposal to hold a meeting to see what evidence should be given. I Hid not propose it myself." He remembered where Mrs Crawford stood in the room whon the enquiry was held. He noticed that accused turned and looked at Mrs Crawford when he answered the question. Ky the way accused looked at Mrs Crawford, he supposed he was telling an untruth.

By Mr Gillies: The conduct of the parties imaressed him with the belief that ' J'Th iuu been a conversation between them.

By the Sergei: All witnesses were ordered outside until their evidence wae required.

Annie Crawford, wife of Wm. Crawford, proprietress of the Tar.naki boarding-hfu-se, said accused bad a conversation with her on the previnus "uiday, in which he said he thought they ought to have a meeting as to too evideoce to be given regarding the fire. Hm wanted the meeting to take place the night before ths inquiry. Annie Dunshee was present when he spoke to her. Witness sat fac.ng the accused at the enquiry. By Mr Gillies: She had no conversation with accused the before the enquiry. She pve him notice to leave after the • nqnity, Wh it accused said to the coroner was not the truth. She could not explain why she allowed accused to remain ail the week ftfi.er he had made the proposal that ' should all commit p.r jury. b>he heird no discussion of the fire in her home from the time it occurred to the time of the enquiry. S"e did not know that Constable McCormack brought, accused down to the iergeant. '1 he accused did ask her to meet him on the Sunday to settle the evidence. She stack to the statement. She rented the boarding house and the accused had no interest in it. She could not suggest any reason why accused Bhould make such a statement. She would not have such a nun in tne house now. Annie Dunsbee, servant at the Taranaki boardinghouse, (ieposad that she heard accused make a prop sal to Mrs Crawford on the Sunday after she gat the summons to attend the enquiry. He proposed they should have a metl.ng the night before the enquiry and that they should all be of oue opinion as to what to say about the tire. He said this to Mrs Crawford. Witness and Mrs Crawford were present when he said it. She made no answer to him, Airs Crawford said she would have nothing to do with it.

By Mr Gillies: She was upaet when she got the summons aud did not quite know what she was saying. She thought it a tiiDuy tiling ftoss should propose such a thing. She couid not tell whether he wanted to tell lies or to talk over what had happened. She talked the matter over with Mrs Crawford several time«. -he did n<>t know why Mrs Crawford did not bundle hi:n out when he mide the proposal. Constable ?<lclV>rm<ick ,who arrested the accused, said that on the warrant being read accused remarked, "If I had to go before the Almighty (iod I told the whole truth "

Mr Gillies, addressing the Bench, sug-?e.-:ted that Mrs Crawford had exerted un dm influence on the other witness, whcm he dfscribed as easily drawn along when extracting her ev denoe. Quoting the law on perjury he showed that the perjury must bs on the matter under enquiry, He held it was not a material statement, and that even if the remark bad beeu made it could not have affected the enquiry. The p >lica had seen fit to make a cuse of it, but their Worsmps would not bt: justified in committing the accused for triai.

'J he Bench had no hesitation in saying it was a matter for the judgment of the Supreme Court, and accused was accordingly committed ;or trial. Bail was allowed in two sureties of .£25 eieh.