GUILTY OF PERJURY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 216, 11 September 1911, Page 7

GUILTY OF PERJURY.

SUGGESTED GRAVE BLUNDER.

CASE OF CHARLES BOAKES,

The young man Charles Boakes, found guiLty a week ago on a charge of committing perjury in the course of an affiliation case, in which h e figured as defendant, heard before Mr. C. C. Kettle, SAL, in the Magistrate's Court, was brought before Justice Chapman for sentence' at the Auckland Supreme Court this morning. Mr. J. R. Livndon, who appeared for accused, submitted that, unintentionally as far an tiie jury was concerned, a grave miscarriage of justice had been •committed by the conviction recorded against accused. Counsel pointed out that there was more than a suspicion tiiat a grave blunder had been made, and suggested that the dramatic production of the child alleged to bear a likeness to prisoner had a substantial influence on the minds of the jury.

His Honor: That means you have been discussing the matter with one of tlic jury. Mr. Lundon said he had been away and had not spokeu to any member ot the jury, but information had reached him. He went on to say that the matter would not bo allowed to rest at the conviction, and efforts would be made to probe further into the difficulties surrounding the whole case with a view to arriving at the actual position. It was for that reason prisoner should be allowed his liberty, but in addition it meant that if the young man was sent to gaol he would 'be prevented from paying off any portion of the arrears amounting to £00 —accumulated before the Court order was made—and also prevented from meeting his obligations in regard to the recurring weekly payments of 7/0.

His Honor remarked that a relative of the girl had written to him, and the letter was signed by the girl and her mother, asking that imprisonment should not be inllicted, and giving as a reason that the £OO of arrears could not be recovered. "I don't allow myself to bo influenced by other people's financial positions," remarked his Honor; "I cannot let an argument of that kind influence me. It would mean introducing a private element into the administration of public justice." His Honor added that lie could not see his way to abstain from inflicting imprisonment, because perjury was a deliberate offence, and he wished .it to be understood that in cases where a conviction for perjury resulted after the prisoner had repeated the alleged false swearing in the Supreme Court, nothing could be more difficult than to give adequate reasons for not imposing imprisonment. In this case, so long as the verdict stood, he would have to give effect to it, and it had to be assumed that the jury, in returning their verdict, disbelieved the evidence of the prisoner a.nd some of the evidence for the defence. He would take time to consider his decision, and prisoner was further remanded.