CHARGE OF PERJURY.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVI, Issue 73, 23 September 1908, Page 8

CHARGE OF PERJURY.

— a> - A QUESTION OF SIGNATUEES. SEARL v. I>E LAVAL. The hearing of the charge of perjury preterred against Leo de Laval by Edward John Searl was resumed before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court to-day. The present case arose out of a successful claim for wages — (£9) — made by do Laval against Searl some time ago. In connection with this previous claim de Laval alleged that Searl had induced him to sign for five amounts at the one time — totalling the amount claimed plus six shillings — and then, having the signatures, ' refused to pay him. This statement forms the text of the present case. Mr. Dunn represented plaintiff and Mr. Toogood deiendant. George M'Laine, tailor, deposed he was in Searl's Cafe one evening, looking for employment. While waiting at the door for Searl, he •'saw de Laval come from the kitchen into the street. While there ,he saw Searl come down to the shop with a book in his hand, which he placed beside the cash register on the desk. Searl shortly after returned and handed de Laval something in the shop. The latter then appeared to sign the book. After de Laval signed the book he left the shop and turned towards the Post Office. Mr. Toogood in addressing the Bench submitted that the information should be dismissed, Leo de Laval, cook, sworn, stated he left Searl's employ on 21st July. Ho signed the five signatures at the one time. On the 21&t July, when he left, there was a sum of £9 6s due him as wages, less advances from 21st June to 21st July. He had earned £14 8s in that time. Witness drew small sums at various times amounting to £2 12s. On Friday, 17th July, he received £2 from George Searl, on Monday, 28th, 10s from the same person, jnaking in all £5 12s. On Wednesday, 22nd July, he asked Searl to pay the balance of £9 6s, and the latter said he would pay him. Plaintiff told witness that £9 6s was still due. This conversation took place in the office upstairs, where witness was generally paid. Here Searl pulled out a pocket book, and from this something- that witness- thqught was notes. Then the plaintiff laid some silver on the table, and appeared to count some gold and notes in his hand. Plaintiff then put the wages book in front of witness and asked him to sign it. There were five lines in the book totalling £14 Bs. Witness asked him why one signature would not. do for the lot. Searl then asked him if it was not allright, told witness to sign, and he would pay him. Witness put five signatures on the page, one- after the other. Ho had hardly time to put the pen down when Searl took the book, blotted it, and locked up the book in a desk. Then he came back and stood in • front of witness, and said : "Now, chef, I've got you : you've signed that book. I won't pay you." Witness asked him if he (Searl) intended to rob him of his hardearned money, and Searl replied that he did. There was no one present in the room at the time. Witness then left the office and on his way out, a girl passed him into the room. No one had come to the door before witness left the room. Witness went downstairs, immediately and saw Whitelaw passing the door. Witness called Whitelaw. When a constable came along he searched witness, and found 6s on his person. The three of them then went upstairs, and the constable asked Searl for an explanation. Searl went to the desk and bringing the book shewed it to the constable, telling him that the last entry £1 8s had been signed that morning. The constable, after examining the book, slated that the signatures looked fresh. He also looked at the blotting-paper, and saw the impress of five signatures, shewing them to Searl. The blotting-paper (produced) had since bad a corner torn off. Witness also examined the blotting-paper and noticed the impress of the five signatures on the right hand corner of the Wotting sheet. Whitelaw believed that the signatures had been recently made. Wit ness then brought an action for ari amount of £9 in the lower court. All the signatures on the page or in the book had been signed upstairs. Witness had never written in any book on Searl's counter. Archibald Whitelaw also gave evidence.