A POLICEMAN CHARGED WITH PERJURY.

Evening Post, Volume L, Issue 44, 20 August 1895, Page 2

A POLICEMAN CHARGED WITH PERJURY.

The oase againßt Constahlo Neßtor, of Eketahuua, oharged with porjnry in Bwearing that he had personally Berved a summons on W. W. Bodmin, was continued in the Magistrate's Court after we went to press yesterday. W. W. Bodmin swore that hB was not in TuUekara on tbe 24th April, thongh he had a placo of business there. The summons was never served on him, and he did not hear of it till after judgment had been obtained against him. Cross-examined, he said that in a letter written just prior to the 24th April he authorised Neßtor to Berve any summons on hia son or on Mr. Clark, his manager. Another summons had previously been served on hia son, who had sent it on to him. He had left instructions to his son and Clark to accept serviae for him. James P. Clark remembered Nestor bringing him a Bummons for Mr. Bodmin, who was away at the Hutfc. He told the constable to leave the summons, and ho (witnesß) wonld send it on. In reply to Mr. Skerrett, the witness said he had seen Nestor about several times enquiring for Mr. Bodmin, but what bis businosa was ha did not know. Mr. Skerrett oon tended that there was a mistake on the part of the aoensed, and that his statement was not intended to mislead the Court. Nestor hod praotioally done that which wa3 a service. Thomas Nestor, the ooonsed, stated that he went three times to Tutaekara to serve the summons in the oase Dutton v. Bodmin, and, being unable to find Bodmin, he returned the Bumraons with a memorandum attaohed to that effect, and stating that 3s extra mileage was required. Afterwards he reoeived a letter from Mr. Bodmin, which concluded by authorising him to servo summonses upon the writer's son or Mr Clark. The summons was then enlarged, and on the 24th of April he again went to Tutaekara. He saw Clark there, and told him he bad a summons for Bodmin. Clark "told him that Bodmin was away on a holiday, and that he (Clark) would take the summons and attend to the matter. The witness thereupon handed the summons to Clark, and made tho affidavit of servioe on the baok. Cross-examined, he paid he had left the word " personally" in the affidavit, because ho thongbt the service was personal, though it was made indirectly, through Clark, He had been 19 years in the Police Force, and no complaint had been made against him. His Worship said that whenever there was a question of intention it was tho Bench's duty to send the matter to a jury. The accußod would be committed for trial, and admitted to bail in his own recognisance. Nestor was further oharged with making a fftUe statement, by means of an affidavit, in the oase Heron v. Bodmin. The oiroumstances of this oaso were similar to those of the preceding one. Nestor left the summons with Bodmin's son, and snbaeqsently made an affidavit that the service had been personal upon Bodmin senior. Anoused reserved hia defence, and was committed for trial, bail being allowed on his own recognisance of £25.