CHARGE OF PERJURY.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 304, 17 September 1908, Page 4

CHARGE OF PERJURY.

A CHEF AND HIS WACES. WHEN WAS THIS BOOK SIGNED? A portion of llio morning ami the whole of tlio afternoon at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday tvas tain;/) up in bimri n% a chargo of perjury prol'wl by VAv/ur<l John Kearl (Mr. Dunn) u K uin»t l,v) ih> I,ml (Mr,' Toogood). Mr. Dunn, in ijiu mv, for tho prosecution, nbtM t|/;ii. I hi', intonnniiiili was one for a finrjiiry, ;ilima out of a civil notion heard UuUm-. I)r, WArlhtir, S.M., on August M in wld,ih Df. J, a y;,| for wages uJlegwl to In, dfi«, Tfm utkff-ji porjury was stated to Ik; in Uj <; of certain words by I)., Laval on oal.li that lio signed five signaturon in the v/!igf;« Look at tlie 0110 time. Alexander M'Arthur, Stipendiary trate, stnted that on Anoint Hi lie prcisiJcd at tho hearing of tlio civil action, De J,aval v. &°arl. A wages receipt book was produced by defendant. During tfio courao of tin* Ji< iar"JS a question arose as to the time live signatures of Do Laval were written. I)e Laval stated that ho signed them all oil' tlio 0110 occasion, and tlio moment they were signed they wero blotted. Tlio question of when these signatures were written was vory material to tho caso. To Mr. Toogood: Witness had said in bis judgment that in his opinion the signatures wore all mado at the saino time. Arthur IMry Holmes, Clork of the Court, produced the . plaint noto, statement of claim, and summons in ■ the action between Leo Do Laval and E. J, and Lily Searl, a claim for £9, wages ■ alleged to be due. The caso was heard on August 28, and Dr. M Arthur, S.M., gave his reserved decision in the case on September 3, judgment being for plaintiff for £9 and costs £3 ss. , PROSECUTOR'S EVIDENCE.

. Edward John Searl, manager of a cafe in ,■ Willis Street, stated that ho was one of the , clefondants in tho civil case Leo De Laval v. E. J. Searl and Lily Sear], a claim for wages. Do Laval had been in witness's employ as a cook on. four occasions. The last-timo ho , joined on'.June 21 last; The wages were £3 os. per .week. Dq. Laval left on July 21. When he left witlhess had paid him £13 • wages as followsOn June 30,. £3 55.; July . 2, £3 ss. ; July 1(3, £3 55.; July 20, £3 55.; and another payment on July 22 of £1 Bs. There were fivo signatures of De Laval in p ; tho .wages, book. These were signed on the ' several dates mentioned abovo. On' July 22 , witness paid De Laval £1 Bs., which lie signed J for. Dq,Laval made no complaint. In his state--1 : ment of claim ■Do Laval gave witness credit for .£5 ,Bs. This amount, was . not correct.' j i'iie; last item —£1 8s. —was paid to. De Layal in- witness's office, when the chef was .chore for about ten minutes. A Miss Williams was-within hearing at the time the payment was made, the door of tho room being ajar. Miss- Williams asked witness if he .was engaged,: and lie replied, telling her to wait a ■ minute or two. She waited, and Do Laval left, but mado no complaint to her. Witness was'.present at tile hearing of the action, and De Laval was called as a witness, and sworn in the ordinary way. Ho . was asked when he signed tho last signature, and he replied that, lie signed tlioiri all on July 22. .Witness said .that tho evidence was false.. Witness believed that all of tho signatures were signed: in the shop, with the exception of the . last ono. On July 20, witness's son Percy was present when Do Laval signed, and other, people,, named, were present when three of tho others/were written. Every one of the signatures' in tho> book .was'written on the date ' mentioned, -except tho fourth 0110 which, instead of being signed on July 22, was signed on July . 20. After, witness, knew Do Laval was: going.'.bo;.;wrofe'Tup thbr'book ,intending to pay ..him: .on July 22. ...Corresponding with , .thd-'entriesi m.-.the-.vwagesPbookewere l entries in the cash. book, with the • exception of the one on July 20, which had been vjxplained. i. To Mr. Toogood: Witness had'been before' tho Bankruptcy Court four times, and, was at present an undischarged bankrupt. He had also been beforo the Courts for debt and for breaches of. tho Licensing' Act. Tho signatures, with tho exception- of the fourth, were signed on the dates - against them in tho book. The fourth payment was mado on July 20, although July 22- appeared-in: the b00k... The cash book was written-up from the wages book. All tho signatures in the book to Juno 22 were made in violet ink—tho. other entries' were made. in black ink. 11l talking the caso over since, witness found that Messrs. Maclaime, - llizzi, Pope, and Percy Sear] were present at different times, when four, of the signatures were made.. There were only witness himself and Do 'Laval present when the payment of £1 1 Bs. was mado. There was 110 special reason for {letting De Laval to sign the last receipt in tile office instead of;in the. shop, where wages were, usually paid, and where the first; four payments had been made. The book was locked up in a desk when it was upstairs. 'There was only one key. to this, desk,- and witness held the key. De, Laval had been paid upstairs sometimes when previously employed by witness. It was a coincidence, that no ono was present when the last pay-, ment was made to De Laval. lie-examined by Mr. Dunn, fitness said his third son, Persy, ,as well as Miss Williams, came upstairs when "De Laval was in the ollice. Witness had been in business for a long time,, during which time he had paid £31,000 in wages. OTHER WITNESSES. ' Win. Pope, carpenter, stated that in July last he had a sister working at Searl's cafe, and it . was his practice' to go to tho cafo every other night, and take his sister homo. His sister left Searl's employ about the middle of July. Witness saw Do Laval'come through into the shop a few days before his sister left. This would lie after the shop was shut, and Searl was in tho shop. Do Laval walked over to tho counter, and loaned over tho counter with a pen ill his hqnd, as if to sign tho book. De Laval, interrogating Searl, said: "Here?" and Searl said: "Yes." Witness saw Do Laval writing over : tho wages book, but could not say whether' lie signed his name'or not. He saw no money . paid to Do Laval. He had seen others sign 1 tho wages book 011 tho counter. > '

To Mr. Toogood: Witness could not swear that De Laval actually signed the book. George Searl, assistant at tho cafo, deposed that he helped to keep the shop book, in which 110 entered any money ho paid out whilst in chargo of the shop, On one < occasion—July 20—witness entered an item of 10s., which he paid to De Laval. At the end of June, when witness and his father were checking the wages book and cash bopk, witness saw that the wages book was signed up to tho end of June. ■To Mr. Toogood: Witness did not see Do Laval sign any of the last fivo signatures. He-examined by Mr. Dunn: The fii'st of tho last fivo signatures was in the book when witness examined it at the end of Juno.

Percy Scarl stated that during Juno and July he whs helping in tho cafe ill Willis Street, checking all the books, and keeping some of them. He kept the shop cash book, and checked the wages book and entry book. The Do Laval entries corresponded with the entries in the cash book. On July 20 witness saw his father "and De Laval iii tlio shop. His father asked him to go upstairs and got the wages book. The book was not upstairs but downstairs, and witness, 011 his return, fourid' , that his father had the book 011 tlio counter. Witness was then sent for tlio ink, and Searl, senior, asked witness for a sovereign 110 had givei him a few minutes before, giving in exchange tlio exact money for a purchase he was about to make. Witness saw De Laval sign the book, and then took the ink away. Tlio same night witness checked the wages book, and found that Do LnvM had signed for. everything ho had boon paid, up to July 20. Witness remarked on the fact that thelast payment was entered'as July 22, instead of July 20, and his father Said ho would fix it up.

Cross-examined by iff. Toogood witness said 110 saw De Laval sign the third signature for July. Edward John Searl (recalled) stated that Miss Pope left his employ 011 July 20, and was paid her wages on July 18. At thiß stage the case was adjourned until Wednesday nest.