The Burrangong Argus and Burrowa, Murrumborrah, and Marengo General Advertiser, Sat 6 Jan 1879 1
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.
…
[YOUNG] QUARTER SESSIONS.
———
THE General Sessions commence at Young on Monday. The following is the list of cases:—
John Murphy, on remand.
Wilson, on remand, larceny.
Temi Palesonia, indecent assault.
Patrick Tobin, cutting and wounding.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Burrangong Argus and Burrowa, Murrumborrah, and Marengo General Advertiser, Sat 11 Jan 1879 2
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.
———
QUARTER SESSIONS.
———
THE General Sessions opened at Young on Monday before his Honor Judge Forbes. Mr Docker prosecuted for the Crown. The other legal gentlemen present were Messrs Freestone, Scarvell and Gordon, and Russell.
ATTEMPTED SOBORNATION [sic] OF PERJURY.
John Murphy was charged with having, at Burrowa, on July 29th, attempted subornation of perjury. Mr Russell assisted in the prosecution. Mr Scarvell for the defence. The Crown Prosecutor opened the case and called
James Meldrum—who deposed: I am a blacksmith at Frogmore; I was a prisoner in Burrowa gaol at the same time as the prisoner, in July 29th, 1878, for maintenance order being disobeyed; I know [Charles Alfred] Sibert the likeness-taker; prisoner asked me if I knew Sibert and his men; I said ‘no;’ he then said ‘It’s all down Albert-street about this affair—I catched them myself at it;’ I said ‘what?’ he said, ‘sodomy;’ he asked me if I was anything going on at Frogmore; I said no; he then asked me would I swear I had seen them, and he would reward me well for it with £40 and a set of blacksmith’s tools; I refused to do so, saying I was in trouble enough myself; this took place in the lock-up; he only mentioned Sibert and his men; he asked me to go to Mr Scott, the magistrate, to lay an information; I refused; sergeant Hitch brought Murphy into my presence, but I did not hear what was said; I never saw Sibert at Frogmore commit sodomy.
To Mr Scarvell: I was in gaol then, and am here in custody; was living at Frogmore at the same time as Sibert; he drew a likeness or two for me; I shod his horse as well; my wife did some work for him, too; I don’t know of any dispute between Sibert and my wife about washing; I don’t remember telling Murphy in the gaol that Sibert did not pay me; may have spoken of him, but don’t think so; I swear there was no dispute between me and Sibert; Murphy told me he was in for perjury; he might have told me that Sibert had him arrested for a horse; I got out of gaol that same day, 29th July; Sibert never spoke to me about it except in the presence of sergeant Hitch; saw a man named Stuart; he asked me about it; he did not tell me Sibert was paying him for what he was doing; he got a written statement from me; I got nothing for my information; the cell we were locked up in was a small one; I swear he offered me £40 and a set of tools; was not shocked at the request; I did not mention a man named Mick Sheedy to Murphy; I swear I did not say I had seen Sibert commit the crime on one of his men; he was some distance camped behind my forge; could not hear what passed between them—constable Anderson and Murphy—in the cell; took no notice; was walking up and down; Anderson might have spoken to me, but I can’t say; don’t remember telling Anderson about the £40; Hitch said something to me about it, but I can’t say what; I did not want to hear anything; am not aware of seeing Murphy just previous to his arrest on this charge; did not speak to Murphy since leaving the gaol; will swear that; do not remember anything about the case at O’Neil’s public-house; did not try to avoid him; don’t think Sibert has been interfering between myself and wife, trying to make a settlement; John nor Mick Sheedy’s names were not mentioned in the gaol by me; don’t remember anything I swore at the police-court; heard nothing about Sibert’s men; don’t know their names nor anything about them; there may be one called Thomas; may have said in the police court that I had seen Thomas; have a very bad memory; I know Mr Scott was a magistrate.
Constable Robert Anderson deposed: Am a police constable; was lock-up keeper at Burrowa on July 29th last; had Meldrum and Murphy in charge at the time; Meldrum could have heard the conversation between myself and the prisoner; Murphy told me he wished to prefer a charge of sodomy against Sibert a likeness taker at Frogmore and said that himself and Mrs H O’Neil a publican’s wife at Frogmore had seen Sibert and Purcell in the act; he made the same statement to the sergeant when he, (the sergeant) came; Sergeant Hitch asked Meldrun if he knew anything about the case; but he said ‘I know nothing about it;’ Meldrum must have heard all that was said as the cell was only 10 X 14; there is a magistrate by the name of Scott in Burrowa.
To Mr Scarvell: Murphy had been brought over to Burrowa from Young gaol on a warrant; the witness Meldrum must have heard all that was said; Murphy referred me to Meldrum who he said would give me particulars; the conversation didn’t concern me and so I did not speak about it; am removed from Burrowa but decline to answer the reason; (on being pressed and at the direction of his Honor witness said he did swear to a man who proved an alibi), am not aware of any other cause; I did not let the prisoner see a magistrate as it was 6 o’clock pm; I did not think it worth while as he was coming down to Young next morning at 7 o’clock; he also asked the sergeant to see a magistrate and said ‘there is a man in the cell who can tell you all about it;’ I was not in the cell with the sergeant except when they were talking about the case; had something else to do about the place; I forget what; up to the time I went into the cell with Hitch Murphy never said a word to me about the case; I did not ask for the paper on which I had given the names of Sibert and his men; I did not ask him for the list book; was not frightened about the result; the first I heard about £40 was at the police office.
To Mr Docker: The mistake I made at Burrowa was in the date.
Sen Sergeant [Nelson Bolton] Hitch deposed: I am senior sergeant of police stationed at Burrowa; from information received from the last witness I went to the lock-up; Meldrum was in one of the cells; he could not hear or see what we were doing; Murphy told me he wished to lay an information against Sibert for committing sodomy; I asked him how long ago; he said some months and there was a man inside the cell who could tell me all about it; I asked him why he did not report it before; he said he did not know about it; I took defendant to Meldrum in the cell; I stated to Meldrum that defendant had told me he knew all about a certain matter; I then told what the charge was; asked him if he knew anything about it; Meldrum replied he did not; Murphy made no reply when he heard Meldrum deny the statement; I fancy Murphy did say something about Meldrum wanting to back out of it; he wanted to see a magistrate; I told him there was no need as he would be leaving for Young next morning early.
To Mr Scarvell: Have seen a good deal of Murphy’s company lately; remember his case with Sibert; had two cases with Sibert; one was at the instance of a ca sa; 3 Sibert has had him one way and another ever since June last; he appeared to be anxious to see a magistrate; told him to lay the charge at Young.
To the Judge: There are only two cells in the Burrowa gaol; the two prisoners Meldrum and Murphy were locked up together all night; heard no threat made to Meldrum.
To Mr Scarvell: I had had conversation at Mr James’s office about the case; I did interest myself a little for Sibert; I told Mr James the witnesses’ names; the defendant was arrested on his return from Young, where he had just gone through his insolvency.
To Mr Docker: At the time he made this statement in the lock-up he was under committal for trial in charge of a gaoler from Young; Meldrum was discharged from custody a day or two after Murphy went to Young.
John Sheedy deposed: I never saw Sibert or any other person commit sodomy at Frogmore.
Charles Alfred Sibert deposed: I am a photographer; I was at Frogmore last year; I had William Purcell and James Thomas in my employ; I most decidedly did not commit the crime mentioned at any time.
To Mr Scarvell: I gave evidence against prisoner here in a case; I laid an information against him for perjury after he was discharged on the first charge; I then got another warrant for him; was not very uneasy when he was discharged; I threatened one of the smith’s (Farrell) with an action; I induced Farrell to give him up, which he did; I then withdrew the action; I then got a ca sa against him; when Farrell gave him up somebody else took Farrell’s place; he filed his schedule then; when he applied for his certificate I opposed the granting of it, and at my expense; I only acted in the interests of justice; I had him arrested in August last on this charge to meet the ends of justice; I know a man by the name of David Stuart; I paid him to go to Frogmore and make inquiries about the case; Stuart is the father of a family and I paid him 20s; the distance from Burrowa to Frogmore is 15 miles; he got a written statement from Meldrum; I went out to Frogmore with constable Dwyer respecting the statement Stuart brought me; Meldrum’s wife was supœnæd [sic] to the court; I did not go to see her, nor see her at all until she was brought to the court; I went and tried to bring her and her husband together; Stuart wrote down the words in the statement; Meldrum has done some work for me at various times, shoeing, &c.
Mr Scarvell for defendant made a telling speech for nearly an hour, quoting several authorities.
Mr Docker replied objecting to Mr Scarvell’s last remark that a verdict of guilty would be a gross miscarriage of justice.
The jury retired at ten minutes past six, and after being locked up for five hours, were unable to agree and were therefore discharged by his Honor. The Crown prosecutor applied that defendant should be bound to appear at such time and place as the Attorney-General might direct. His Honor granted the application. Bail—defendant in £100 and one surety in the same amount.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Yass Courier and General Advertiser, Fri 4 Apr 1879 4
LOCAL AND GENERAL
———◦———
YASS CIRCUIT COURT.
TUESDAY, APRIL 1.
Before Mr Justice Faucett.
The assizes were opened at Yass on Tuesday, by Mr Justice Faucett. Mr Makinson was the judge’s associate. Mr Williams, JP, represented the sheriff. Mr FJ Armstrong prosecuted for the Crown, instructed by Mr Wiltshire, from the Crown solicitor’s offices. The legal gentlemen in attendance during the session were—Messrs E Bennett, and AC Irwin, barristers, from Sydney; Mr WF Wilkinson and Mr Iceton, solicitors, were also present.
The usual proclamation against vice and immorality was read by the judge’s associate.
…
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2.
Before Mr Justice Faucett.
…
ATTEMPTED SUBORNATION OF PERJURY.
John Murphy surrendered to his bail on the above charge.
Mr E Bennett, instructed by Mr Iceton, appeared on behalf of the defence; the learned counsel for the prosecution being instructed by Mr Wilkinson.
Mr E Bennett objected to the accused being placed in the dock, and asked that he might be allowed to stand on the floor of the court, as he was only charged with a misdemeanor. [sic]
His Honor asked what was the charge.
Mr Bennett explained that it was one of subornation or perjury, and that he had seen prisoners similarly charged stand their trial on the floor of the court.
His Honor said this is a serious offence. It is misdemeanor no doubt, but there are different classes of misdemeanors. In this case the prisoner should certainly take his place in the dock.
The prisoner was placed in the dock, charged as the indictment set forth that he (John Murphy), on 29th day of July 1878, at Burrowa, “falsely, wickedly, and unlawfully did solicit, instigate, and endeavour to persuade and incite James Meldrum unlawfully, falsely, corruptly, and maliciously, upon the oath of him the said John Murphy (?) to charge one Charles Alfred Sibert, before one of her Majesty’s justices of the peace, with having committed at Frogmoor” [sic] an indictable offence.
The prisoner pleaded not guilty.
His Honor: Is not this a charge, Mr Bennett, to justify the prisoner being placed in the dock.
Mr Bennett: Certainly, your Honor; but it is only an attempt at subornation of perjury.
The following jury were empanelled: John O’Donnell, Christopher Horne, John Thompson, Benjamin Pollard, Alexander Reid, John Brown, Richard Jordon, Jabez Hill, John Barber, John Barry, John William Grey, and John Dowling.
The learned counsel for the prosecution, in introducing the case, said there were several kinds of misdemeanor, but this one was a most serious one. The prisoner attempted to suborn a witness to lay a detestable and capital charge against Mr Sibert. He here gave an outline of the case, and stated that regarding the law on the subject, the 16th Statute Victoria No. 18, with sections 9, 21, 22, and 28, bore on this species of misdemeanor, and he quoted the sections bearing on the matter at issue. The following evidence was brought to support the charge:—
Nelson Bolton Hitch, deposed: I am senior-sergeant of police, stationed at Burrowa; I arrested the prisoner Murphy in July last on a charge of perjury, and in the following month I arrested him at the instance of Charles Alfred Sibert on a charge of inciting a man named Meldrum to prefer a charge against the said Charles Alfred Sibert of committing an indictable offence; turning to the 29th July last, I went to the lock-up at Burrowa, as I heard that Meldrum, who was confined therein, wished to see me; Murphy was outside at the time, and he said he wanted to lay an information against a man named Sibert for having committed an unnatural offence with some of his (Sibert’s) men; I asked when it occurred, and he said some months ago, at a place called Frogmoor [sic], which is about fifteen miles from Burrowa; Sibert is a travelling photographer, and was then taking photographs at Frogmoor; I asked prisoner (Murphy) why he did not report the matter before, and he said he did not care about troubling about it then; I asked if anyone else witnessed the committal of the offence, and he said John Sheedy, who was a farmer at Frogmoor, and the wife of a publican whose name he did not know; the prisoner said, pointing to the cell, “there’s a man in here who knows all about it;” he was alluding to James Meldrum, who was in the lockup; I told prisoner Murphy, in answer to his request that he would like to see a magistrate, that it was not convenient to take him to see a magistrate then; I then took Murphy to the cell in which Meldrum was confined, and confronted prisoner with Meldrum; I mentioned to Meldrum what Murphy had told me; constable Anderson was present at the time of the interview; Meldrum denied knowing anything whatever of the accusation; Murphy persisted in his statement that Meldrum knew of the offence, but Meldrum persisted in his denial; subsequent to this a warrant was entrusted me to apprehend John Murphy on a charge of having incited James Meldrum to prefer a charge against Sibert of committing an indictable offence; prisoner was arrested on 29th August; Murphy stated that Sibert’s man had committed the same offence near Hovell’s Creek, on the bank of a river; I asked if he saw that offence committed; prisoner said he saw Thomas committing the act with Bursal, and Sibert was encouraging him; Murphy and Meldrum were confined in the same cell for about a week, and had every opportunity of speaking to each other; Meldrum had been in gaol some few days before Murphy was admitted to the same cell.
Cross-examined by Mr Bennett: I told the prisoner it was not convenient to see a magistrate when he told me he wished to be taken to one, because he was in custody of the police and was to be sent to Young the next morning under habeas corpus write; a magistrate could have been brought to the prisoner; I knew the charge was a serious one; I told prisoner he could see a magistrate at Young; I recollect the charge of perjury preferred by Sibert against prisoner; he was acquitted on that charge, which arose out of a civil action in the District Court concerning the value of a horse; Sibert preferred a second charge of perjury against prisoner, which was dismissed by the bench at Burrowa, and the prisoner was arrested at the instance of Sibert for debt, and confined in gaol; the prisoner was tried on this present charge at Young, but the jury could not agree; prisoner and Meldrum were in the same cell at Burrowa for over six days; Murphy said to Meldrum, when he denied all knowledge of this accusation against Sibert, “now you want to go back;” John Sheedy was the person prisoner mentioned as having witnessed the offence; there is a brother named Michael Sheedy living in the same neighbourhood; there were two public-houses in Frogmoor then; there has been two public-houses at Frogmoor for three years; I did not go to see any of the publicans when I heard of this affair having been witnessed, as was stated by prisoner, by one of the family of the publicans; I did not care for communicating on the subject with the person alluded to by prisoner from motives of delicacy; I did not cause enquiry to be made on these charges; I have known Meldrum for over four years; he is a man that is given to drinking; he was incarcerated at the the [sic] time this narration took place for wife desertion; I heard nothing personally relative to the blacksmith’s tools or money which is said prisoner offered Meldrum as an inducement to lay the information.
Robert Anderson deposed: I am a member of the New South Wales police force; I was lockup-keeper at Burrowa in last July; on 29th July I had two prisoners in the lockup; they were James Meldrum and the prisoner Murphy; Murphy told me he wanted to prefer a charge against Sibert and his men of having committed an indictable offence; he said that James Meldrum and John Sheedy had caught the persons alluded to, who were two men in Sibert’s employ (Bursall and Thomas), committing the offence; he also said that a publican’s wife at Frogmoor saw Sibert and Bursall committing a felony; he then said he would like to see a magistrate; I said I could not bring one but I could bring to him sergeant Hitch; then Murphy told the sergeant exactly what he told me; Meldrum was in the call at the time, which is a small one; Meldrum made no reply whatever while I was in the lockup; I left sergeant Hitch and the two prisoners together; Murphy did complain once of the food he was getting in gaol, and I said to him if you have money I’ll get you better food; he replied, “I want my money to get Sibert in gaol, somehow or other.”
By Mr Bennett: This remark was made a week before this accusation was preferred against Sibert; Frogmoor is about fifteen miles from Burrowa; I did not hear prisoner make this remark or any remark concerning money when he made this accusation against Sibert.
Charles Alfred Sibert deposed: I am a photographer travelling in the Burrowa district; I am the prosecutor in this case and I know the prisoner, and have done so for some time; Meldrum came to me shortly after I had been to the Police Court, which was towards the end of last July, and wished to tell me something important; I told him I was too busy to see him; he came a second time and said I want to tell you something Murphy has said of great importance, but I put him off with the same remark as I had before; from information I received I went with senior-constable Dwyer and Mr O’Neil, a publican, to see Meldrum, and I heard something when visiting him; I have men in my employ; the former has been with me two years and the latter about half that time; I did not notice any impropriety in their conduct whilst in my employ; I never committed any impropriety with either of the men; if such a thing has been said it was entirely false; I never offered Meldrum money nor did I ever send anyone to him with an offer of money; I have been offered £30 to withdraw his charge; I received the offer through Mr Scarvell, but before that I got a telegram to the same effect.
Cross-examined by Mr Bennett: I have the letter which I received through Mr Scarvell containing this offer, but not the telegram, though I can get most likely a copy of it; the letter I produce; this letter is from Mr Russell, my own solicitor; I did not see Mr Scarvell offer or pay over the money; I only know of the offer from him through this letter; the letter was here put in by Mr Bennett and read. It was as follows:—
Young, 28th August, 1878. – Dear Sir, – I attended the meeting for insolvent, held here yesterday, and examined insolvent at considerable length. The examination lasted all day, till half-past four o’clock, and I now enclose you a copy of his evidence and schedule as requested. On Monday Messrs Scarvell and Gordon offered me, without prejudice, the sum of £30 for you not to prove in the estate, and that all prosecutions by you against Murphy (except the one he is now committed for), and any prosecution he (Murphy) may have against you at an end. I telegraphed this to you and your answer was anything but satisfactory, in one way or the other, so, of course, I proceeded with the examination as you instructed me when at Young. Had I been in your place I think I should have accepted the money, however, you are the best judge, and you will be better up in Murphy’s affairs after you peruse his evidence, which I think anything but correct. – Yours, &c, John Russell. Mr CA Sibert, Burrowa.
Examination continued: I had no other letter respecting the money offer; the letter just read is from my solicitor; Scarvell and Gordon mentioned in it were acting for prisoner; prisoner did not offer me £20; I have known prisoner about fourteen or fifteen months, and for a considerable time since I have known him I have had actions at law against him; I first had a civil action at law against him in May, 1878, in a breach of warranty of a horse; I got a verdict in that case of £20 with £20 expenses; after that case I laid two charges of perjury against Murphy, one was dismissed by the magistrates and on the other prisoner was acquitted by the jury; I and my men were examined in the charge of perjury that came before the jury at Young; both charges arose out of evidence given by prisoner in the civil action; I also had a prisoner arrested and put in gaol on a write of ca sa for debt; when he was arrested under ca sa he was out on bail on the second charge of perjury; after he was arrested on the ca sa he applied for his release, but my solicitor opposed the application; my solicitor acted for me in the matter of prisoner’s insolvency; I gave evidence at Young on the present charge and also on the charge of perjury; and from the month of May, 1878, I have had actions at law against prisoner; there was first a civil action for the horse, and then followed the two perjury cases; and I had him arrested pending one of them for debt; I know a man of the name of Farrell living at Burrowa; he was Murphy’s bondsman; I asked Farrell to withdraw his bond as Murphy was going to bolt, and he would have to go to gaol; the action for a breach of warranty was on a written guarantee; I heard prisoner say in court to Judge Forbes that he could neither read nor write though I believe he could.
James Meldrum deposed: I am a blacksmith at Frogmoor, near Burrowa; I know the prisoner Murphy and Sibert; on the 29th July last year I was in the lockup at Burrowa; prisoner was with me in the same cell for two or three days; he made a statement to me with reference to Sibert; it was as follows:—“Prisoner Murphy, when with me in the cell, asked me if I knew about Sibert and his men; I said no; he then said didn’t you hear the news; I said no; he then said, “Oh! it was all down about Hovell’s Creek,” which is near Frogmoor; I asked him about what? he said, “I caught them myself at it;” I asked him at what? he told me at the offence mentioned; I told him I did not understand the meaning of the word he used, and he explained what it was; I said it could not be the case; prisoner asked me if I saw anything of the kind at Frogmoor, and I said no; he then asked me if I would go down to a magistrate at Burrowa, whose name is Mr Scott, and lay an information about this affair, and he would “back me;” I told him I would not have any “truck in it;” I told him I was in trouble enough, and that I did not want any more; then he said he would lay the information himself, if I would only back him; I said I would not; he said he would give me £40 and a set of blacksmith’s tools if I would only go to Mr Scott and lay the information; I said I would not do it; he repeated the offer, and I each time refused to have anything to do with the affair; he did not offer me anything else; I was present at an interview which took place at the lockup, between sergeant Hitch, prisoner, and myself; prisoner spoke to sergeant Hitch at this interview, but I did not hear what he said; I said, when Murphy turned to me, that I would not have anything to do in the matter; I don’t recollect if anything else was said, as the conversation took place some time back; I went, after I got out of gaol, to Sibert, but he would not listen to me; I saw him eventually, and had a conversation with him at Frogmoor; Sibert never promised me any reward or offered me any money; I have been offered money not to go against prisoner, but I said that I would go according to law in this matter; I was offered £20 at one place about a fortnight ago if I kept back from giving evidence against the prisoner; prisoner on one occasion did say to me that he would like to have the ——– hanged, meaning Sibert, if he could; this £40 and the set of blacksmiths’ tools which he promised, were to be given to me on condition that I should lay this information.
By Mr Bennett: The prisoner did not offer me any money not to say anything in this case; a man named Hayes, and another man named Horton, made offers to me of money not to go against Murphy; I cannot say whether any of these persons saw the prisoner and had his authority to make these offers; the man Hayes lives at Lambing Flat, and his Christian name is William; I have known Hayes for sixteen years; Horton is at Grabben Gullen, near Goulburn; I think Hayes keeps a wine shop at Lambing Flat; I did not tell Murphy that my wife washed for Sibert and he did not pay her; my wife washed for Sibert, who paid for the washing or gave value for it; I have known Sibert for about two years; I recollect a civil action that Sibert took against Murphy, and I knew Sibert two months previously; I did not mention Sibert’s name to Murphy in the lockup before he spoke to me of the information he wished me to lay.
By his Honor: Prisoner asked me if I would go to the magistrate and lay an information, and I said I would not, as I was in trouble enough; those were my words.
By the Crown Prosecutor: I did not say that I would lay the information about the affair.
On his Honor referring to his notes, it was found witness used the word “affair” when speaking of the information he was asked to lay.
John Sheedy deposed: I am a farmer at Frogmoor; I have known the prisoner Murphy for four years, but Sibert I have known but a short time; I saw the latter first at Frogmoor, about six months back; I never saw anything wrong between Sibert and his men;
By Mr Bennett: I have a brother, Mick, living at Frogmoor; I have known Meldrum about eighteen months, for he lives in a house belonging to me; I know Meldrum drinks; I can’t say I would believe Meldrum on his oath.
This was the case for the Crown.
Charles Alfred Sibert, re-called by his Honor, stated that when he got the letter mentioned prisoner had been committed to take his trial for perjury, and the present charge was pending, while the letter referred to the first charge.
Mr Bennett submitted that the case on this information could not go before the jury, inasmuch as it was stated that according to the evidence adduced for the prosecution, or rather that given by the principal witness, Meldrum, he (Murphy) wanted him (Meldrum) to lay the information, whereas the information states that Murphy was to lay the information and Meldrum back it up by giving false testimony. The information stated that John Murphy did solicit, instigate, and endeavour to persuade and incite James Meldrum unlawfully, falsely, &c, upon the oath of him, the said John Murphy (?), to charge Sibert with the offence. On this ground he would object to the case being put before the jury.
His Honor: The information is a most curious one. What does it mean when it states that the prisoner did endeavour to incite Meldrum, upon the oath of one John Murphy, to charge? Is it meant that Meldrum is, on the oath of Murphy, to lay the information, or that upon the oath of James Meldrum the information was to be laid? There is, certainly, a fault in the information.
The Crown Prosecutor: I submit the information states the charge clearly.
His Honor: What does this mean —“On oath of the said John Murphy?”
The Crown Prosecutor made an application to amend the information, by substituting the name of James Meldrum for that of John Murphy in the portion of the information alluded to. The error was a clerical one, and he was positive it did not occur in drafting the information.
Mr Bennet objected to the application being acceded to. The information as it stood stated a distinct offence to that which had been tried before the court. The case for the Crown was concluded, and the information should not be amended.
His Honor: The information ought to be amended, as it is unintelligible as it now stands, but it would be intelligible if the name of Meldrum was substituted for that of Murphy in the part alluded to. As the error is a clerical one, there can be no objection to its being rectified, especially to further the ends of justice.
Mr Bennett requested his Honor to take a note of his objection to the amendment which he made, on the grounds that the case for the Crown had been concluded when the amendment was proposed.
Mr Bennet then asked whether the case, which was one of attempted subornation of perjury, was one to go before the jury, since the charge was not supported by two witnesses as the law required. Two witnesses were required to support a charge of perjury, or one witness and such circumstances as were considered so satisfactory and strong as to be equivalent to direct evidence, and in this case the same rule held good. The learned counsel quoted in support of the position he took up, Archbold p. 699 (pleading and evidence) edition of 1859. He argued that two witnesses were required to prove this charge; there were not two witnesses, as the charge rested on the evidence of one only, and therefore he submitted that this case should not go before the jury.
His Honor overruled the objection, which was noted
Mr Bennett addressed the jury for the defence. He pointed out the peculiar circumstances of the whole case, laid great stress on the animosity of feeling with which Sibert had pursued the prisoner, and having taken for the line of defence the ground that it was not proved that prisoner was not justified in making the remarks and attempting to take the action he he [sic] did, he concluded by reviewing the salient portions of the evidence for the prosecution, which he said was in favour of the prisoner’s innocence of the charge preferred against him.
His Honor said the prisoner stands charged with an attempt to commit an offence commonly known as subornation of perjury, or in other words with attempting to induce James Meldrum to lay an information on oath, that is on Meldrum’s oath, charging Sibert with having committed an indictable offence. The information on which the prisoner stands charged contained a clerical error which rendered it unintelligible, but the court has at all times power to amend clerical errors on the application of the Crown Prosecutor, and in this instance, in order to assist and further the ends of justice, the error has been amended. There is no doubt that the charge is serious, though the offence comes under the head of misdemeanor. It is to induce a person to charge another individual with a capital offence, which if proved on the evidence of the person laying that charge, would render the prisoner convicted of it liable to be hanged, so it is apart from its abominableness a most serious charge. If the prisoner had succeeded in getting the information, for which he solicited Meldrum, laid, and if he had laid the information, and on the oath of Meldrum Sibert was committed for trial on this accusation, and if the jury before whom he were tried convicted Sibert on the evidence of Murphy and Meldrum, Sibert would have been sentenced to death. This would have been the result of this attempt, if it had been successful. In this case the jury will have to pay great attention to the evidence adduced for the prosecution in all its parts. The principal portion of the evidence to be considered with the most care and exactness is that of Meldrum. The whole charge rests entirely upon his evidence. In the first place you must be thoroughly satisfied that Meldrum is speaking the truth before you find the prisoner guilty. If you have doubts, reasonable doubts on this point, if you are dissatisfied with the evidence of Meldrum you must acquit the prisoner for the case rests entirely upon his evidence. Let me draw attention to the facts with which you must be satisfied before you convict the accused. He is charged with, that he did incite one James Meldrum, falsely, corruptly, and maliciously, upon the oath of him, the said James Meldrum, to charge Charles Alfred Sibert with an abominable offence. I would direct you to leave out the term maliciously in your consideration of the charge and give particular attention to the expressions falsely and corruptly; so then the charge against prisoner is that he did endeavour to persuade and incite one James Meldrum falsely and corruptly, upon the oath of him John Murphy, to charge Charles Alfred Sibert with an indictable offence. In the first place you must be satisfied that Sibert did not commit this offence mentioned before you can decide as to the present accusation against prisoner. You are told by the learned counsel for the defence that in this matter there ought to be two witnesses to prove that Sibert is innocent of the offence with which the alleged attempt was made to charge him. Also that a charge of perjury or a kindred charge could not be sustained unless of evidence of two witnesses, or one witness with such circumstances as are equivalent to evidence and will satisfy the jury as being such. In dealing with the consideration as to the correctness or falseness of the charge which prisoner attempted to have brought against Sibert was there two witnesses to testify to its truthfulness or otherwise? His Honor then referred to the allegations of prisoner respecting the witnesses of the deed of which he accused Sibert, and dwelt on the evidence of Sheedy which positively denied having seen the offence committed. Having touched upon the circumstances of the whole case as far as Sibert was concerned, he directed the attention of the jury to the evidence of Meldrum, on which this present charge entirely rested. In dealing with the charge against the prisoner, he referred to the strong feeling that apparently existed between him and Sibert, and gave a brief relation of the legal transactions between the prisoner and Sibert. The evidence of Meldrum, on which this charge entirely rested, was carefully reviewed by his Honor. He asked them if they were satisfied that Meldrum spoke the truth when he gave an account of what transpired between him and the prisoner in the cell at Burrowa. The conduct of Meldrum when he said that he knew nothing of it—the charge—when Murphy referred constable Hitch to him—was it consistent with his relation of what took place? Meldrum was a man addicted to drink, was at the time referred to in gaol on a charge which was discreditable to any man—that of wife desertion, and moreover, Sheedy, his landlord, who had known him 2 years, could not say that he would believe him on oath, and, taking these circumstances, he said it was for the jury to decide whether they could believe his account and rely on the truth of his evidence. If they could not they would have to discharge the prisoner. His Honor then reviewed the evidence of the remaining witnesses touching this question, and concluded his summing up by a recapitulation of the parts into which the whole charge resolved itself.
The jury retired at 1.30 pm, and at 3.30 pm they intimidated they had not agreed. At 5.30 pm they informed his Honor there was no possibility of their agreeing. At 8.20 his Honor resumed his seat, and the jury, on being brought into court, said there was no possibility of their agreeing in the case, there being one dissentient juryman. His Honor, then, with the consent of the Crown Prosecutor and Mr Bennett, discharged the jury.
The prisoner was remanded, and he entered into his own recognisance of £100 to appear when, and at what place, he should be called upon by the Attorney-General to stand his trial.
The witnesses in the case were bound over to attend at what court the Attorney-General should appoint for the hearing of the case.
The court adjourned sine die.
1 The Burrangong Argus and Burrowa, Murrumborrah, and Marengo General Advertiser, Sat 6 Jan 1879, p. 2. Emphasis added.
2 The Burrangong Argus and Burrowa, Murrumborrah, and Marengo General Advertiser, Sat 11 Jan 1879, p. 2. Emphasis added.
3 ca sa – capias ad satisfaciendum – a writ for the arrest of the defendant in a civil action when judgment had been recovered against him for a sum of money and had not been satisfied.
4 The Yass Courier and General Advertiser, Fri 4 Apr 1879, pp. 2, 3. Emphasis added.