DISTRICT COURT, REEFTON.

Inangahua Times, Volume VII, Issue 1039, 23 January 1882, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, REEFTON.

Thursday, January 19th, 1882,

(Before His Honor Judge Broad.)

Reoina v. Charles Mirfin. Accused was arraigned upon an indictment by the Crown charging him witli forging the name of W. H. Jones. When ten jurors were seated it was found that the panel had been exhausted, owing to the number of jurors ordered to " stand by " both by the accused and the Crown. Eventually it was agreed that the names of the balance of the jury should be recast, and the two first drawn accepted. This course having been followed, the jury was sworn in as follows : Messrs C. Cohen, (foreman), W. Thomas, J. Dick, J. Pollock, T. Ellis, W. Wills, J. Ross, A. Main, J. Bolitho, J. Page, J. S. Smith and F. M'Guigan. Mr Perkins conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr Lynch appeared for the defence. Mr Perkins, Crown Prosecutor, opened the case for the prosecution at some length. He said the charge was one of a veiy serious nature and was included under two counts, one for forgery, and the other for uttering. He entered fully and lucidly into the law bearing upon both counts, citing authorities to show that even if the signature to the telegram had been authorised by a Jones other than Mr W. H. Jones, the informant, ths addition of the words "Chairman Weston's Committee," would clearly point out to the receiver of the message that* Mr W. H. Jones was the person represented, he being publicly known to be the Chairman of Weston's committee. Having gone over the facts of the case, he called the following evidence : — Mr G. W. Sampson, Officer in Charge of the Telegraph Office, Reefton, was called and examined, but his evidence was only a repetition of that given before the Magistrate, and already reported by U3. He proved to the presentation of the telegrams for transmission, and instructions from the Commissioner to obtain MrW. H. Jonea* endorsement before sending them. He produced the telegrams. Mr Lynch raised a technical objection to the production of the telegrams, and a lengthy argument ensued. Mr Perkins having replied, His Honor decided to admit the telegrams, and they were put in and read. Mr W. H. Jones was called and proved that he was publicly appointed Chairman uf Mr Weston's Committee some days

prior to the last general election, and that he in that capacity waited upon Mr Weston's principal supporters at Brunnerton, in the interest of the candidate. That it was known at Brunnerton that witness was Chairman of Mr Weston's Committee at Reefton. That no other chairman had been subsequently appointed at Reefton by Mr Weston's Committee. He never authorised any person to telegraph in his name to Brunnerton or elsewhere. The telegram produced and purporting to be signed by witness was a forgery, and its contents were false. The message was in prisoner's handwriting. Witness had been an active supporter of Mr Weston throughout the contest, and nominated the candidate. Had the message in question been transmitted witness would have been placed in a false and injurious light, and his reputation privately and professionally would have been seriously aSected. He read an extract from the Inaxgahtta Times wherein it had been stated that he had been deputed to visit Brunnerton in Mr Weston's interest. W. Faller, secretary of Mr Weston's Committee, at Reefton, proved to the appointment of Mr W. H. Jones as Ceairman of the committe, and to there being only one committte of Weston's supporters at Reefton. D. J. M'Kenna, late rate collector ; I recollect December 9th, the day of election ; I know the accused ; I do not believe Mirfin supported Weston; he supported Mr Reeves ; I got a parcel of telegrams to take to the office, I think there were four or five ; I gave them to Mr Sampson of the telegraph office. The one now produced is one of them ; I got them from M 'Sherry at Mr Brennan'a office, who also gave me half a sovereign to pay for them ; I returned Is. or Is 6d. Mr Sampson looked at me when I gave him the telegram. He declined to send them on till he had seen Mr Jones ; I read part of the telegrams "Weston's return impossible," and thought that it was untrue. Mirfin told me this morning that I knew exactly how far to go in my evidence, and when to stop. Mirfin never spoke to me about the telegrams before ; I did not know that W. H. Jones was chairman of Weston's Committee ; I do not know any other Jones. John M 'Sherry, clerk : I recollect 9th December. On that day I gave five telegrams to M'Kenna to take to the telegraph office. I got them from the accused. I got half a sovereign from him. He said he wanted them sent oft' I gave them to M'Kenna with the money. Mirfin said he intended to take them up him- ' self, but having something else to do he asked me. Ido not recollect, but believe that I gave Mirfin the change M'Kenna brought since the day of election. Mirfin remarked that M'Kenna did not state the amount of change correctly in the R.M. Court. Cross-examined by Mr Lynch : Mr Mirfin said when bringing the telegrams to me that he was busy with some work for our office, and therefore asked me to take telegrams to save time. George Wise, sharebroker : I know Mr W. H. Jones, solicitor, here. He was chairman of Weston's Committee at Reefton ; I was present at his appointment. To my knowledge no other chairman of Weston's Committee existed in Reefton. Had I received the telegram produced I would have taken it to nave come from Mr Jones. Never had any conversation with the accused on the matter. He is proprietor of the Herald. Crosß-examined by Mr Lynch : I do not know who was chairman of committees for other candidates. Mr Faler was secretary of our own committee. Mr Jones. went down the electorate in the capacity of chairman. He returned in time for the election day. I did not attend the committee meetings, and do not know that Mr Jones' doings were reported. J. Taylor, storekeeper, Brunnerton : I am an elector for the district, and voted as such. There is no other person named Taylor in Brunnerton, a storekeeper. I know Mr Jones. Previous to the election Mr Jones interviewed me on election matters. The telegram produced had it been handed to me I would have taken to ! have come from Mr Jones. I don't know any other Jones as chairman of Weston'a committee. He was the only one recog- ' nised by me as chairman. Mr Jones was the only person with whom I had any ] conversation about the election. I was a s supporter of Mr Weston, and chairman < of his committee at Brunnerton. From < previous communications, I would have l been influenced by a message like the one produced. The telegram would have had j this effect had I received it, it is probable i that we would have acted upon the advice i of the Reefton chairman, and voted for c M'Lean. t This closed the case for the prosecution, i and an adjournment was made till 2 s o'clock for lunch. t Mr Lynch opened the case for the de- h fence. He said the offence with which t accused was charged was undoubtedly one v of a very grave character, yet, if he had t been properly instructed, he thought that f 1 be should be able to disprove it ; he i' would prove that a committee had been J Formed to secure Mr - v eston's return, ' md that a *>r James Jones had been a luly appointed chairman of that commit- si ice ; that acting under the instructions of n ;he chairman the accused sent the tele- t ( jram in question. A number of witnesses & vould be called to testify to these facts, si md he had no doubt whatever that he b ihould be able to establish the defence. 3e called the following evidence : — s< Walter Atkin :lam a compositor work- ' ng at the Inangahua Herald, of which tl accused is the proprietor. I recollect the * ate general election. Messra Reeves, Veston, and M'Lean, were nominated as andidates. Mirfin suggested that a com- d< nittee be formed to secure Mr Weston's v eturn. A meeting was convened by irculai-, which was printed by me three jj r four days before the meeting. The j € ircular produced is the one, it was printed n the Ist December. The meeting was tl )be held at the Fire Brigade Hall. In jj of this, the meeting was held n December 3rd. Present : Me3srs <ji Krfin, Webb. Brown, and myself. A

committee wa3 formoJ, a secretary and treasurer was appointed, to secure Weston's election. James Jone3 was appointed chairman. Webb was first proposed, then Mirfin, and afterv.av is Jones was appointed. The secretary was requested to make inquiries about the result of Weston's and M 'Lean's candidature. [The minutes of the meeting were the» read in Court.] The subsequent meeting was held the evening previous to the day of election at Mirfin's residence when there were present — Brown, Webb, Mirfin, and myself. After Mirfin had report el matters in connection with the election it was suggested that the chances of Weston's return, owing to his absence, were small, and that support should be given to M'Lcan. Webb was chairman at that meeting ; did not know of any other Weston's Committee in Reefton ; did not know of the appointment of W. H. Jones : think I know of Jas. Connolly having been chairman of some Weston's meeting. Cross-examined by the Crown Prosecutor :I am still in accused's employ ; he ordered the circulars to be printed ; I printed fifty ; do not know who got any ; I got none ; they were printed before the 3rd December ; the circular now produced again was printed about the same, time; tiiey were all printed at the same tune ; none have been printed since : the meeting was held in the fire brigade hall, at about 6 o'clock : Mirfin was there ; I was there, and Webb and Brown : do not know that Webb is a particular friend of Mirfin's ; have met him at Mirtin's house on several occasions — about three or four times ; the minutes produced were taken at the time ; James Jones was not there ; do not know whether his consent was obtained to act as permanent chairman of Weston's committee ; he is waiter at Dawson's Hotel ; I spoke to him to-day : he never objected to being chairman ; did not speak to him on the subject ; do not think I ever spoke to him about this matter whatsoever, except the conversation to-day, when he said he was sorry for being subpoenaed ; nothing was said at the meeting about the confusion of names by appointing James Jones ; £9 153 was subscribed in the room ; I subscribed £1 ; Brown gave £2 ; saw him pass over the two notes ; did not pay mine, and suppose it has been booked to me by accused. Do not know how the money was collected ; only know of £3, namely Brown's and my own ; I did not pay mine ; do not know how the money was spent ; at the meeting at accused's house on the Bth J. Jones was not present ; he was never present ; lam one of Weston's supporters but did not vote for him ; decline to say who I voted for; was not present at Weston's meeting in the Oddfellows' Hall ; do not know whether Brown or Webb were there ; am a supporter of Weston, but voted the other way : we acted independent of the meetinz held in the Oddfellows' Hall. The Crown Prosecutor here declined to examine the witness any further. J. B. Beech was called, and stated that he was a supporter of Mr Weston at the last election, but did not attend any meetings ; did hot hear until after the election that VV. H. Jones had been appointed i chairman of the committee. Cross-examined: Had I received the telegram in question, should have understood that it came from W. H. Jones, not from J. Jones. No other witnesses were called for the defence, and Yfr Lynch proceeded to address the jury for the defence ; he reviewed the evidence at some length, and argued that the conduct of the accused had been quite inconsistent with guilt ; he had made a clean breast of everything, Showing at once that he had nothing to conceal. There had been no attempt to disguise the handwriting, and the authority for the telegram was at once given up. This was a course of conduct not likely to j be displayed by a person charged with such a serious oftence. The authority for the signing of the telegram had he thought, been fully proved. No doubt could be entertained as to the meeting held in the fire brigade hall ; the evidence of the witness Atkin had been unshaken on that point, and it was further supported by the minutes, and the printed circular. The fact of J. Jones' appointment as chairman of the committee had been fully established, and that fact fully justified all the subsequent acts of the accused. He asked ihe jury to have regard to the respectability and standing of the accused, and to disbelieve that he would be guilty of such an offence. The Crown Prosecutor said he would have been content to let the case go to the jury without comment, but after the address of Mr Lynch, he was tempted to depart from that resolve. It had been argued that the defendant had made a clean breast. But when did he make that clean breast — not until the evidence against him was in the hands of the prosecution, and he himself stood upon the floor of the Court with a serious charge hanging over his head. As to there being no attempt to couceal the handwriting, he would ask the jury to banish that circumstance at once ; as the telegram if sent at all would have been received in the handwriting of the telegraph clerk. The defence had undertaken at the outset to prove by a number of witnesses that the prisoner had full authority for his acts, but how far had the evidence for the defence proved that forecast ; where were, all the witnesses who were to have been called ? what would have been easier For the accused with such a charge hanging over his head to have placed James Tones in the witness-box — the man from whom he alleges to have derived his sole authority— and to have at once freed him»elf of the charge ? but James Jones had tiot been called, and the jury would have io draw their own conclusion from that Fact. What evidence had there been that mch a meeting as that alleged had ever been held as described ? there was one tvitness — an employe of the accused — and tome carefully written minutes : and arhat did that witness prove ? he proved ;hat James Jones never attended one of ;he so-called meetings, nor so far as the witness knew ever consented to accept tho >osition of chairman ; while as to the >ther persons who are said to have attenled the meetings spoken of — Brown and kVebb, neither of them had been called, -f owever, he would leave the whole evilence with all its improbability to the jury ,nd it would be for them to accept or reect it. H U Honor then proceeded to address he jury : having clearly defined the law •earing upon the case, said the issue for he jury was whether the prisoner .-,> ignsd the tel^ram with an honest or a, ishonest intent. The jurp then retire 1. cv:ij 2 ft -an ab-

sence of ah hour and a-half returned for direction as to whether they were to regard the accused as responsible for the nonrcalling of the witness James Jones. His Honor directed them that it was the duty of the Crown to make out its case, and it rested with the defence to bring forward evidence in rebuttal. The jury again retired, and after a slioit absence returned a verdict of " Not Guilty," and the prisoner was discharged.