ALLEGED FALSE DECLARATION

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 102, 1 May 1889, Page 5

ALLEGED FALSE DECLARATION

CHARGE AGAINST ROTH.

The charge against R. F. Rofch of having made a false declaration on his insurance policy in connection with the recent fire at his premises in Victona-street was continued at the Police Courb this morning, before Dr. Giles, R.M. Mr Thos. Cotter, instructed by Mr J. B. Graham, conducted the prosecution, while Mr Theo. Cooper appeared for the defence. Mr Cooper, in opening the case for the defence, said that if the evidence proved what ha was instructed it would, then he submitted that the defendant should not be committed for trial. This was the first case of the kind that had come before fche Courb. It was rather a peculiar ca?e, as it was not an information for perjury, but for wilful and corrupt false declaration. He would, therefore, refer to the evidence already given on behalf of the prosecution. He did not think that the prosecution would suggest thab Mr Roth hud not lost the full amount for which he was insured, that was supposing that the items £50 for chairs and £250 for the baths wereleimi nated. The ultimate sum to which the defendant was entitled was £500, that was including the chairs and baths. If the 'matter of the chairs and the baths were cleared up, then there would be no attempt to defraud. H& contended that there was no wilfully false statement with regard to either of those items. Twenty cases of chaira were insured, and whether they remained in the cases or were distributed about the shop, the effect was the same if they were destroyed. What tha defendant claimed was for the contents of twenty cases of chairs. They could prove that over 240 chairs had been so destroyed by fire as to have been rendered absolutely commercially worthless. Mr Cooper then commented at some leDgth upon the evidence adduced for the prosecution. He concluded by asking His Worship if he considered that a prima facia easo had been established. He asked because he had twelve witnesses to call, and did not wish to take up the time of the Court. If His Worship decided that a prima facie, case had been established, he jvould reserve his defence. His Worship said he thought that the evidence for the prosecution was sufficient to establish a prima facie case and to warrant him in committing the accusedfor trial. There being in hia opinion a prima facie casealready shown f rom the evidenceadduced for the prosecution, he would not be justified m dismissing the case even if evidence were adduced by the defendant; which would lead him to think that if he1 were on tha jury he would fftypur an acquittal,

He could only dismiss the case, if the cvi-< dence for the prosecution was such as would make it unreasonable to think that the jury would convict.

Mr Cooper said that under the circumstances he would reserve his defence.

His Worship then committed the prisoner to take his trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court.

Defendant was admitted to bail on one sure by of £50.

Mr Cotter said that so far this had been a private prosecution, bub he would now ask that it should be left in the hands of the Crown.

His Worship made the order accordingly.