From Western Post, March 9th 1861: WINDEYER From a correspondent Friday, March 1 Before Joseph COX and John MURPHY, Esqrs. PHILLIPS v TUCKER This was in information under the Towns Police Act, for the unlawful detention by defendant, Mr Stephen TUCKER, of Long Creek, of a bullock, the property of the plaintiff. John PHILLIPS having brought the beast in question, to the neighbourhood of the Court-house, Mr PHILLIPS was requested to inspect it, which he did; and on returning to the Court, said he could swear to the identity of the beast, irrespective of the brand, which, however, was his own, 1P. He had bred it and valued it at £10. Mr. BRODRIBB, for the defence, submitted to an order of restitution, declaring Mr TUCKER's intention to proceed against the party from whom he bought the animal, was delivered up at once. TUCKER v MILLER Mr Stephen TUCKER complained that James MILLER of Long Creek had committed willful and corrupt perjury. The case, out of which this proceeding arose, originated in a trial at the last sittings of the District Court, at Mudgee, wherein MILLER was the plaintiff and Mr TUCKER the defendant, whose set-off involved items of account for goods sold and money paid, amounting to about £500; among these was a sum of £20, alleged to have been paid for MILLER, at his request. MILLER disputed this, and at the trial, as well as before the arbitrator, to whom the matter was referred by the Court, entered into an explanation of the reasons why he did so, and it was alleged that, in giving this explanation, he committed perjury. Complainant having made his statement, called as his witness, Mr JAMES, solicitor, of Mudgee, who deposed that he had conducted MILLER's case at the trial, and also, before the arbitrator, Mr McAULEY, who acted under an order made by the District Court. He was examined by the Bench on the particular item of account, and the evidence given by MILLER in respect of it, and was briefly cross-examined by defendant. Mr Edward CLARKE was next called, who being asked by the Bench to give an account of the proceedings, said that to particularize would occupy a quire of foolscap. He had conducted Mr TUCKER's case before the arbitrator, and spoke to certain facts sworn to by MILLER in connexion with some timber. The arbitrator had authority to administer an oath. Mr BRODRIBB, solicitor, deposed that he was not present at the arbitration. Could speak to what happened before the contract between the parties was entered into. Defendant was then cautioned in the usual manner as to making any statement, and was much disposed of to make a speech, but eventually forebore, when the Bench, having considered, thought the evidence insufficient to warrant a committal, and accordingly dismissed the case. ***END*** Annette Piper Please note: Every effort has been to transcribe the above information correctly, however errors may have inadvertently been made. Spelling of surnames/places as appears in original.