PERJURY CHARGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 258, 31 October 1932, Page 5

PERJURY CHARGE.

DAMAGES CLAIM SEQUEL "EYE-WITNESS" IN DOCK. SYMONDS STREET ACCIDENT. DID ACCUSED SEE IT? Charged with committing perjury in the Supreme Court on August 12 last. Ernest Cheadle, aged 30, carrier and con tractor, stood his trial in the Supreme Court this morning before Mr. Justiec Herdman and a jury. The indictment against Cheadle was that he committed perjury in a hearing, before Mr. Justice Herdman, of a writ issued by Michael Walter Karews, claiming damages against Arthur Stanley Holton for alleged negligence, by wilfully making a statement on oath, as follows: "I remember Tuesday, February 23, this year. I saw an accident just before one o'clock; I was walking up Symonds Street, and was nearly opposite the accident." The indictment alleged that accused was, in truth and fact, not in or near Symonds Street at, or near, one o'clock on February 23, and that he did not .see the accident.

Mr. V. R. Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution, and accused, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr. Allan Moody. " The Only Eye-witness." Mr. Meredith said Cheadle was the only so-called eye-witness produced at the hearing of the claim, and the result of the hearing was an award of £1110 for the plaintiff. The obvious suggestion would be that in all probability Cheadle received a proportion of the amount awarded. "In such eases as this," said Mr. Meredith, "if a witness comes forward and says, 'Yes, I saw the accident,' and appears to be an impartial witness, then his evidence naturally carries tremendous weight." Counsel said Andrew Sinkovieli, an orcliardist, of Henderson, would be called to say that he noticed accused's name in a newspaper report of the case. He knew accused, and in conversation with him at Freeman's Bay on August 15 Cheadle said to him, "1 got £150 out of the case." This was possibly a foolish thing to say, but accused attempted to cover it up by saying that it was only said in fun. It would be submitted that there was a conspiracy to defraud. When interviewed by Detective-Sergeant Doyle, accused refused to give the name of a girl who, he said, could testify to the fact that he met her soon after the accident. He would not disclose her name and address, as lie said she wo lid deny having seen him. Evidence as to accused's testimony in the damages claim was given by John Duff Keen, crier of the Supreme Court. Witness said he distinctly remembered Cheadle saying that he was standing on the left hand side of Symoiuls Street near the scene of the accident when the accident occurred.

Replying to Mr. Moody, witness said he paid particular attention to the evidence in question owing to the fact that Cheadle was the only eye-witness.

Mr. J. F. W. Dickson, barrister and solicitor, said he cross'-examiticd accuscd in his (witness') ollicc, and accused said that he saw Kavews knocked down by defendant's truck. "Ready to Pay, if Legal." Percy James Watts, manager of the Standard Insurance Company in Auckland, was called as a witness. Replying to Mr. Moody, lie said lie was present in the Supreme Court as a spectator during the damages claim. He was interested in the case as it was one in which his company was concerned. Mr. Moody: I think yours is the company which holds the liability. Is not--that so? —Yes. And your company has not paid yet? Witness was answering at length when he was rebuked by the judge. "Please understand," said his Honor, "that you must give a simple answer to counsel's question." Further questioned, the witness said his company had not paid. Their cheque was ready, provided payment was legal. Counsel: So, if they have not paid, there is no possibility of Cheadle receiving £250 or £130 out of it. Witness: We have applied for a retrial of the action. Counsel: But C'rfeadle could not have received any money if the cheque had not been paid. I presume this action will have very material bearing on that payment. His Honor remarked that the payment of the insurance money had no bearing on the case at present before the Court. Evidence similar to that given in the Lower Court was then taken. The hearing is proceeding.