143
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE.
nents asked " Why?" The said Charles John-
son Pharazyn replied, "He is a guilty man."
These deponents said, "How can you say that
when the trial is not over. The said Charles John-
son Pharazyn answered, "The evidence of the
child alone is enough to condemn him. We
all think him guilty. Even his friend Colonel
Gold who thought him innocent, is satisfied he
is guilty from the evidence of the child," or
words to the like purport and effect-the said
Charles Johnson Pharazyn then asked to speak
to this deponent, Margaret Langley, alone; and
this deponent, Caroline Mathews, then left the
kitchen.

3. And this deponent, Margaret Langley,
   further makes oath and says, that on the said
   Caroline Mathews leaving the kitchen, the said
   Charles Johnson Pharazyn endeavoured to in-
   timidate her, this deponent, from giving her
   evidence as before mentioned in the first
   paragraph of this affidavit.

4. And these deponents further say that on
   the return to the kitchen of the said Caroline
   Mathews the said Charles Johnson Pharazyn
   wished to shake hands with her the said Caro-
   line Mathews; upon which this deponent,
   Margaret Langley, said to the said Charles
   Johnson Pharazyn, " of course she will not
   shake hands with you." The said Charles
   Johnson Pharazyn asked "Why?" The said
   Margaret Langley replied, "because you are
   an enemy of Mr. Baker." The said Charles
   Johnson Pharazyn answered, "I am not his
   enemy-except politically-he had no business
   to meddle with politics." The said Margaret
   Langley then said, "No doubt if he had been
   a Government man you would have got him
   through, even if you had seen him commit the
   act," or words to the like purport and effect,
   the said Charles Johnson Pharazyn answered,
   " Of course we should most certainly."

5. And this deponent, Margaret Langley,
   further makes oath and says, that he, the said
   Charles Johnson Pharazyn, told her, this de-
   ponent, that he had attended as a Magistrate
   to hear the case, "Schroder v. Baker," with-
   out being summoned.

6. And this deponent, Margaret Langley,
   further says, that on Tuesday, the seventh day
   of September instant, the said Charles Johnson
   Pharazyn again came to the residence of the
   said Arthur Baker and said to this deponent,
   " I flattered myself you would not have been
   called as a witness. I advised Mr. Schroder
   not to call you. I told him the case against
   Mr. Baker was strong enough without further
   evidence that the girl's evidence was sufficient,
   and that we all thought Mr. Baker guilty. It
   was Mr. King who called you."

7. And this deponent, Margaret Langley,
   further makes oath and says, that the said
   Charles Johnson Pharazyn has frequently pre-
   vious to the fourth day of September instant
   spoken to her, this deponent, against the said
   Arthur Baker, saying that the said Arthur
   Baker was a Roman Catholic, and would soon
   be a Monk and go into the Convent.

8. And this deponent, Margaret Langley,
   further says that on the evening of Monday
   the sixth day of September instant, she, this
   deponent, went to the house of Mary Anne
   Mason, the wife of William Mason of Wel-
   lington, aforesaid, dyer, and informed the said
   Mary Ann Mason of the conversation the said
   Charles Johnson Pharazyn had had with her,
   the deponent, and Caroline Mathews on the
   Saturday previous, and on being asked by the
   said Mary Ann Mason, why she, this deponent,
   had not stated what had passed between her,
   this deponent, and the said Charles Johnson
   Pharazyn to the Magistrates on giving her
   evidence in the case "Schroder v. Baker," this
   deponent replied she only answered the ques-
   tions asked her, and that, as the said Charles
   Johnson Pharazyn was her brother-in-law, and
   as her child was living with him, she thought
   it would make things unpleasant if she, this
   deponent, had informed the Magistrates what
   had passed between her and the said Charles
   Johnson Pharazyn.

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

Sworn by the deponents,
Margaret Langley and
Caroline Mathews, at
Wellington, aforesaid,
this 27th day of Sep-
tember, 1858,

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

In the Supreme Court
of New Zealand, for
the Southern Dis-
trict.

I, Mary Anne Mason, the wife of William
Mason, of Wellington, in the Province of
Wellington and Colony of New Zealand,
Dyer, make oath and say :-

1. On the evening of Monday, the sixth
   day of September, instant, Margaret Langley
   who lives as Housekeeper with Arthur
   Baker, of Wellington, aforesaid clerk, called
   at my house in Wellington, and told me that
   she, the said Margaret Langley, had just
   given her evidence in the Resident Magis-
   trate's Court in the case of "Schroder v.
   Baker." In the course of the conversation I
   then had with the said Margaret Langley, she
   told me that on the Saturday previous, namely,
   the fourth day of September, instant, Charles
   Johnson Pharazyn, of Wellington, aforesaid,
   Esquire, came to see her, the said Margaret
   Langley, at the residence of the said Arthur
   Baker, and that the said Charles Johnson
   Pharazyn then said to her the said Margaret
   Langley, in the presence of Caroline
   Mathews, the words following, or to the like
   purport and effect, "Well has the old Parson
   cut his throat or hanged himself; it serves
   him right; take my advice do not say any-
   thing in Mr. Baker's favor at the trial, for if
   you do they may ask you impudent questions
   about Walter Alzdorf; Mr. Baker is sure to
   be convicted; he should not have meddled