ALLEGED PERJURY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLVII, Issue 10826, 22 January 1927, Page 8

ALLEGED PERJURY.

CHARGE AGAINST A CONSTABLE. HEARING AT DUNEDIN. (Per Press Association). .DUNEDIN, January 21. After several adjournments, tle SgIHaSS- with af e the ty sequc>rto ° the action in the Supreme Court m Novembei when John William Lockett was ed substantial damages ag™«t the idLdin police conslaMc lice been charged with pe;;iury,_and in that case the information was ciismissort. - The cliarges mere: (1) That George Macartney, of Dunedin, stable, did on Novembei 3 1926 , a* Dunedin, commit uerjurj on the hea in" of an action brought in the Supreme Court at (Dunedin by John William Lockett against Geoige Macartney bv swearing, firstly, what at about- half-past 11 on Jho night of_ July 23 1920, in Kemnuir Road, Morning ton John William W~ett was very drunk and that he then and there arrested John William Lockett drunkenness m a public place , and, secondly, that when coming along tne road John William Lockett was staggering all over the road ancl smelt very strongly of liquor; and, ylurdly, that John William Lockett was then staggering all over the road and ,was drunk and thoroughly drunk; and, ‘fourthly that when he had John William Lockett in the watch-house and put him in tli6 cell lie was still drank. (2) Tliat George Macartney did on November 3, 1926, at Dunedin, commit perjury the hearing of an action brought in the Supreme Court at Dunedin by John William Lockett against George Macartney by swearing that he never at any time struck John William Lockett a blow of any description either with his clenched fist or otherwise during the whole of the struggle between himself and John William Lockett oil the night of July 23, 1926. Mr Adams, after outlining the two charges, said that in view of the verdict of the jury in the case in which Lockett was awarded damages against the constable, the police considered it to he their duty to proceed against Macartney for perjury. The evidence would be the same as given in the Supreme Court, except that Mr Cave, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, would be called. It was * considered that the Judge’s associate should be called, but he was now residing permanently in Auckland, and counsel and Mr Hanlon would decide whether it would be considered necessary to call him. .. ■ Ernest White Cave, Registrar of the Supreme Court at Dunedin, gave evidence to the effect that Macartney had made the statements mentioned in the charge, - The case is proceeding.