THE BEAUTY PARLOUR CASE.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14029, 28 April 1911, Page 3

THE BEAUTY PARLOUR CASE.

ALLEGATIONS OF PERJURY

I Tho case Emmerson v. Hemsley Burnett, Ltd., which was recently heard '•;] before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., was j~ n again before the M-agist-rate's Court ; yesterday, when Mr Alpers applied

for a re-hearing. Mr Bishop was again ou the Bench. Mr Alpers appeaivJ for plaintiff, and Mr Hunter for defendant. In making the application, Mr Alpers said that it had been brought on tho grounds of wilful and corrupt perjury committed by certain witnesses who gave cvidenco on behalf of defendant. The Magistrate said that it was a very unusual procedure to try people on a charge of wilful and corrupt perjury in a civil action. In most cases of this kind that came before the Civil Court there was no direct charge of perjury as in the present case. Mr Alpers stated that his reason for asking for a re-hearing, rather than bringing a new action was that, if the latter course were adopted, plaintiff would have to pay the costs of the last action, which amounted to some ,€v. He and the plaintiff had clearly recognised when the ense was heard that a nonsuit was inevitable, as plaintiff's evidence was insufficient. He could bring evidence to prove that perjury had been committed. Tho Magistrate said that it was not necessary tor Mr Hunter to reply. Ho could not think of granting *a* ie- - ---hearing. Tho case was one to which he had given a great deal of thought and consideration, but had found it impossible to get at the back of the minds of tho witnesses. First he had been impressed with the evidence of ono witness and then he had been equally impressed wjth the quality of tho evidence on the other side. llt was surprising to hear Mr Alpers j say that he deemed a nonsuit inevitable, for Mr Alpers had had a very ! narrow escape of not getting a nonj suit, and having judgment given for j defendant. After the caso had been I heard, he (Mr Bishop) had adopted the course) —which was unusual with him— of granting a nonsuit without an application. He had done this because he was so impressed with the evidence of both sides that ho left Mr Alpers the | option of bringing a fresh case—a course that was perfectly plain. Instead of that, Mr Alpers had adopted the course of asking for a re-hearing, apparently only on the ground that tho ; plaintiff would, if a fresh caso were , brought, have to pay the costs. Tho .proper course to follow would have been to bring a fresh action, and if ou hearing the second case ho (the magistrate) had been fully satisfied that the Court had been misled, he would have taken the whole, of the circumstances into consideration iv awarding damages. The application would be refused. Mr Alpers remarked that when he made the statement that '•' a nonsuit was inevitable he meant "a nousuit or worse." As a matter of fact be had thought that judgment would be I given for defendant. The Magistrate: "As a matter of fact, Mr Alpers. I was protecting you, and left the case open for you to bring a fresh trial." Mr Hunter asked leave to refute tho I allegations of perjury, but the Jlaeis- i trate■ said that that was not necessary. Mr Hunter thereupon said that lie wouldjuftt make a general statement to the effect that ho could call evidence to complexly refute the allegations