PERJURY PROSECUTION ORDERED.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 139, 13 June 1911, Page 4

PERJURY PROSECUTION ORDERED.

DEFENDANT IN MAINTENANCE CASE. SERIOUS ALLEGATION. An unusual development in a maintenance case at the S.M. Court was the instruction of the police by the Magistrate (Mr. C. C. Kettle) to take action against a defendant on the. charge of committed perjury. The circumstances of the whole case were somewhat singular. The action was for maintenance of the illegitimate child of Pattie Keyte, against Charles Boakes. On a former occasion when the case was brought forward, Mr. Kettle dismissed the information without prejudice, and suggested an investigation by the police. Further evidence having been secured, a fresh information was laid. When the ease was called yesterday after 3 p.m. Mr. A. L. Dennis'ton, who appeared for the complainant, stated that he had other witneses to call, which, by proving defendant's statements at the previous hearing were incorrect, warranted the assumption that the complainent's allegations were 'true. Mr. A. E. Skelton, who was in Court, said on the former occasion he had appeared for the defendant, but he was not doing so this time. He, thought it only fair to mention that Mr. Boakes was in Christchurch, which accounted for his non-appearance. Miss gave evidence alleging that defendant was the father of her child. She also stated that she went to Coromandel because she was ill in consequence of an operation performed on her. Defendant and a man named Williams accompanied her to a house in Grey Lynn. They went to the then 'terminus, and walked to the house, where the operation was performed. Defendant had told her to do it, and she said she would do anything for his sake. George Williams deposed that he had boarded at Mrs. Keyte's house. One evening Charlie Boakes asked witness to accompany him to a hoilse at Grey Lynn. Boakes told him that he had got Miss Keyte into trouble. Witness went with them. On entering the house, a woman took Miss Keyte into another room, and returned with her in about 'ten minutes. Mr. Kettle: "Can you tell where that house is?" Witness said he could not, as it waS night when he went, and he did not know the district. When he went to the house, he knew the girl was in trouble, and thought 'the woman could do something for her legally with pills. He bad no idea that any operation was to be performed. He heard money jingl6 into the hands of the lady, and afterward Boakes said he had paid her £5 or £6. Witness might as well have been taken there blindfolded, for he could not find that house again. Mr. Denniston pointed out that it wa_ three years since this had happened. He added: "Boakes swears he never in his life went with you to that house at Grey Lynn." Witness: "Hf is telling lies." Mr Kettle said had that evidence been before him on the previous occasion, there would not have been any doubt whatever in his mind. As it was he had the sworn testimony of the girl regarding having visited this house at Grey Lynn, and the young fellow was equally positive iv denying that he had been to that particular house. Apparently someone bad committed gross perjury, therefore he dismissed the case without prejudice. After the evidence he had just heard, there was no question in his mind) and he must adjudge defendant the i father'of the child. "I now," added Mr. Kettle, "direct the police to take proceedings against the defendant in that he has falsely sworn that he never went with Williams and Pattie Keyte to Grey Lynn, and there visited the woman in the house referred to. Under the Justice of the Peace Act, I direct the police to take steps to have him arrested on the charge of perjury. I have no reason to doubt that Williams is an honest man." Mr. Kettle then ordered defendant to pay 7/6 per week towards the maintenance of the child, also to pay arrears amounting to £35, also accouchement costs £5 10/, witnesses' costs, and three guineas solicitor's fees. Mr. Kettle said it was very gratifying that Williams had come forward. He really could not understand why, if the police had Williams' statement in their possession, that a prosecution had not taken place long ago, not on account of Ithe operation, unless the house and woman could be identified, but against defendant for perjury. Miss Keyte was then Called forward by Mr. Kettle, who said: "I did not disbelieve you previously; it was not that, but when the young man gave his version, it was absolutely- opposed to your statement. That created a doubt in my mind, and I could not conscientiously Ido other, than dismiss tbe information i without prejudice. All those doubts are now dissipated, for Williams' evidence >ow puts an entirely different complexion upon the matter, therefore, I give you an order."