CHARGE OF PERJURY.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 310, 24 September 1908, Page 4

CHARGE OF PERJURY.

A CHEF AND HIS WACES. : THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. JUDGMENT RESERVED. The charge of perjury, Edward John Searl v.. Leo Do Laval, arising out of evidence given in a recent civil action in which Do Laval sued Searl for wages, was advanced a further. stage before Mr. W. ,G. Riddcll, S.M., yesterday. :Mr. Dunn appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Toogood for defendant. FINAL WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION. ; George M'Laine, tailor, deposed that ho was at Searl's Cafe just _ after the SearlLyoris case, his object being to see if ho could get work, as ho was out of employment. Mr. Scarl was upstairs when witness called so ho waited for about half-an-hour. De Laval came out of the shop during the timo witness was at tlio door and went'out 011 to the street and loaned against' a verandah pole. Witness-saw Searl como into-.tho shop with a square book in his hand. ' Searl put tho book on tho counter by the cash register-and wont into tlio-dining-room. When. Searl came back to the shop Do Laval went, in, and Scarl gave him something. Do Laval then went across to tho book on tho counter and seemed to be signing it. Witness was about two or .three yards away when Do Laval'was at. tho book, which'was similar 1 to the wages book produced. After Do Laval had apparently signed tlio book ho left tho shop and went towards the post office. To Mr. Toogood: Witness attended the, Court last Wednesday, but left' because lie' was ill. On Tuesday night Searl had 6allod at witness's houso and-asked him if lie was, going to appear" that day." Nothing" was said about the case. Searl did- not describe" the wages book to witness. Witness, did not! know what Do Laval wroto in the book', but. ho appeared to be writing about three parts' of the way down tho page. Edward John Searl, recallod, stated that tho Searl-Lyons action in the Supreme Court, was heard on July 2, 3, and i last. This concluded the .case for plaintiff." • .

DEFENDANT'S CASE.. Do Laval, who elocted to give evidence, stated that ho was a cook, and left Searl's omployon July 21. Witness stated that ho signed the five signatures concerned at the one time. On July 21, when witness left, Searl owed witness £9 .6s. Searl owed for four weeks arid .threo days, £14 Bs.'Witness had received £2 12s. in small sums on account, tlso a sum .of £2 and a.further sum of 10s. Thin'left £9! 6s. owing .'when witness left. On July 22 witness asked Searl for the money, as he had given, notice to leave onJuly 18. Searl said he would pay the money for the four-weeks and threo .days less tho sums advanced/. • Witness was generally, paid in the'office upstairs, where the above transactions took-place. - Searl placed some silver on the table and also' handled somo notes and gold.. . He. put the wages book in front of witness, and said: "Sign there and I'll pay you." There were five entries, and witness asked, why not make the one signature instead of- five. At length witness put fivo signatures' on the book. Searl caught hold of the.' book and blotted it, taking it over to tho desk and locking it up. He came back and stood in front of witness, saying, "Now, chef, I'ro got you. You have signed your namo in that book-. I won't pay you." Witness''asked' Searl if ho intended robbing him of'tho money ho had earned honestly. . Thoro,was no one else .present in tho room at the time. Witness then left , and as 110 went out a girl went m. Previous to this 110 one had como to tho door and opened it.-. .Witness was 011 his wriy downstairs when, he saw Mr. Whitelaw, and. spoko. to him. Inconsequence of tho .conversation, Whitelaw waited until-a constablo came along, 'l'ho. constable searched witness, and found 6s.,"after whioh Whitelaw, tho constable, and" witness went upstairs, where tho constable asked Searl to explain. Searl produced tho'book and said Do Laval had only signed one, signature, foj- £1 Bs.", that morning. Tho remarked that the signatures all;'.appeared to, be in fresh ink! The constablo picked up the blotting paper (produced)." "This "paper had'been torn since the constable picked it up/ Tho constablo ssid'he could find the signatures on tho blotting paper, and asked-Searl to have a look at tnem himself. Witness recognised his fivo signatures in tho right hand', corner of tho' blotting paper, the names Leo. being' plain. Witness could not soo tho signatures 011 tho blotting-paper now produced, as the, right-hand corner had beon torn off. Whitelaw believed'tho signatures had been .recently made. No ;ono of tho livo signatures had, been signed, in tho shop, and witness had never written in a book on Searl's counter.' - Cross-examined by Mi'. Dunn witness said he had been employed by Searl on foui" occasions. Ho had always been paid tip. If witness swore before Dr. M'Arthur 'that 110 did,not see the fivo signatures 011-the'blotter it.was not-triie. "If he said Mi 110 must have' misunderstood tho question,, Witness / had, not spoken' to. Constable. Havelock about, the matter or to: Whitelaw. ;

THE BLOTTING-PAPER'S EVIDENCE. Archibald Whitehw, ■' sterootypor, stated that on July .22 ho saw Do Laval on Searl's premises. As witness was going in to lunch i)e Laval called out excitedly and asked witness to search him. Witness refused, and asked what the reason for tho request'was. Do-Laval said Scarl owed him -£9 r ':6s. for wages. He said ho had been to Searl's room and that Searl had put 6s: on the table and put/bis hand into his pocket as if to get the-.-balanco of tho money. Do. Laval then said that Se'arl asked him to "sign the book, which he did. Searl. then said.'.'That's all .you are going to get." Witness advised Do Laval to stay where ho was until a policeman camo along. Witness stayed alongsido Do Laval. The policeman came along and searched De Laval, and. found only tho Gs. After tho searching tho policeman, Do Laval, and witness 'went upstairs to seo Searl. Do Laval repeated to Scarl What he had already said to'witness. Searl .was very obliging, and did all 'witness asked him to do. Searl said he had paid Do Laval £1 Bs.. and produced the wages book, saying the last signature in the book was De Laval's receipt. Do Laval made a statement that ho had signed the five. signatures at t)ie one time. Witness looked at the signatures, and said at the time' that the five signatures appeared to be freshly written. 'Witness asked for' the blotting-paper, which- was produced. Tho blotting-paper in Court was tho same, but it had been torn. Witness could not seo tho five 'signatures on the blotting-paper, hut. Searl pointed out a mark of £1 Bs. on tho' blotter.' • '. To.' Mr. Dunn: If there had been five signatures on tho blotting-paper witness would have expected to have seen them. The constable said in the room that," ho could see the five.'signatures on ■ the blotter. Witness could not see them. Searl offered every facility, and gave the impression of being willing to give all information.

SAW ; FIVE; SIGNATURES. Constable Havelock stated that on July 22 he saw Whitelaw and De Laval standing in Searl's doorway; Both men called witness in, aiid De Laval said he had been "beaten" for his monoy and asked witness to search him. Witness 'went through tho search and found only 6s. Witness went on to describe tlw* happenings ...in'-Searl's office upstairs." Witness saw the five signatures in the book, and remarked that'they all appeared to he fresh. Tho blotting-paper (produced) was in Searl's office. It'.had been torn since'witness first saw it. Witness saw the fivo signatures then, but could not see them now'. He considered they had been torn off. Witness remarked to Searl ill tho office that the signatures wero there, but he did not think .Searl looked at, tho blotter. After witness had been cross-cxamincd at length the .case for'the defence was closed. ' 1 His Worship had agreed with Mr. Wilford earlier in the afternoon that the case Searl V. Havelock, ill which Mr. Wilford was'engaged to appear'for. defendant, should he adjourned until Wednesday -next, and that judgment in the case Searl v. De.'Laval should be adjourned until the evidence in the second caso should bate b&n "taken."' """