141
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE.

without taking any notice or otherwise inter-
fering therein, so far as I was personally
concerned, until the said 13th day of August,
when he committed the said assault upon me,
although a full investigation of the charge
against me had been for some several days
previously offered to the said George William
Schroder which he declined.

9th. I positively deny that I committed any
such assault as alleged upon the said Mary
Schroder on the the said 1st day of June last,
or at any other time whatsoever; and I swear
that the evidence of the said Mary Schroder in
respect of such assault, and that such assault
was committed by me, is wholly untrue.

10th. And lastly, I am advised and believe
the same to be true that the aforesaid judgment
and conviction of the said Magistrates against
me is bad in law: for that such Magistrates
have exceeded their jurisdiction, and that the
evidence was not sufficient to support such
judgment and conviction.

(Signed) ARTHUR BAKER.

Sworn at Wellington, in
the Province of Wel-
lington and Colony of
New Zealand, this
20th day of September,
1858,

Before me.
(Signed) ROBT R. STRANG,
Registrar.

Re-sworn by the Deponent, at
Wellington, this 24th day of
September, 1858,

Before me,
(Signed) R. R. STRANG,
Registrar.
(Signed) ARTHUR BAKER.

In the Supreme Court
of New Zealand for
the Southern District.

We, Margaret Langley of Wellington in the
Province of Wellington and Colony of New
Zealand, housekeeper to Arthur Baker of
Wellington aforesaid, clerk; and Caroline
Mathews of Wellington aforesaid, domestic
servant in the employ of the said Arthur
Baker severally make oath and say: and this
deponent Margaret Langley on her oath says:

1. On Saturday the fourth day of Septem-
   ber instant, Charles Johnson Pharazyn of Wel-
   lington aforesaid, esquire, called at the house
   of the said Arthur Baker and said to me that I
   was subpœnaed by Mr. Schroder and that he,
   the said Charles Johnson Pharazyn came to put
   me on my guard and told me "to take warn-
   ing, whatever I did not to give evidence in
   favour of Mr. Baker, and that if I did I should
   have awkward questions put to me about
   Master Alzdorf," the said Charles Johnson
   Pharazyn also told me he was one of the Ma-
   gistrates sitting to hear the complaint of Mr.
   Schroder against Mr. Baker.

2. And these deponents, Margaret Langley
   and Caroline Mathews, severally make oath
   and say that on the said fourth day of Septem-
   ber instant, the said Charles Johnson Pharazyn
   in the presence of both these deponents said,
   "Mr. Baker is sure to be convicted, he should
   not have meddled with politics; if he had been
   on our side we would have got him through
   even if we had thought him guilty."

(Signed) MARGARET LANGLEY.
(Signed) CAROLINE MATHEWS.

Sworn by the above named
deponents, Margaret Langley
and Caroline Mathews, at
Wellington, this 24th day of
September, 1858,

Before me,
(Signed) R. R. STRANG,
Registrar.

In the Supreme Court
of New Zealand,
Southern District.

I, Charles Johnson Pharazyn, of the Town
of Wellington in the Province of Wellington,
Esquire, one of Her Majesty's Justices of the
Peace for the said Province of Wellington make
oath and swear:-

1. That I have read the affidavit of Marga-
   ret Langley and Caroline Mathews filed in
   this Court in the matter of the application of
   Arthur Eaker to remove into this Court a cer-
   tain record of conviction made by certain
   Magistrates on the sixth September, 1858,
   against him upon the complaint of one George
   William Schroder.

2. That the said Margaret Langley was the
   wife of Johnson Buckland who was brother.
   of my wife, and my wife and I have taken
   charge of and adopted as our daughter Fran-
   cis Margaret Buckland the only surviving
   child of the said Margaret Langley by the
   said Johnson Buckland.

3. That previous to the fourth day of Sep-
   tember, 1858, the day mentioned in the affi-
   davit of the said Margaret Langley and Caro-
   line Mathews (the day on which I went to see
   the said Margaret Langley at the residence of
   the said Arthur Baker) in a conversation I
   had had with the said Margaret Langley in
   which the conduct of the said Arthur Baker
   had been alluded to, she the said Margaret
   Langley had declared to me that she knew
   nothing at all of the matter and did not be-
   lieve the report current relative to him and
   Mary Schroder.

That subsequently to such conversation
and previous to the said fourth day of Sep-
tember, I heard reports to the effect that the
said Margaret Langley did know something
of the matter in question between the said
Arthur Baker and Mary Schroder.

That I was one of the Bench of Justices
who sat to hear the case of Schroder against
Arthur Baker on the 3rd day of September,
1858.

That finding that the said Margaret Langley
had been subpœnaed by the said George Wil-
liam Schroder as a witness to give evidence in
the said cause I went on the following morn-
ing, the said fourth day of September, to see the