THE HADLEY CASE

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 19, 23 July 1919, Page 7

THE HADLEY CASE

ALLEGED PERJURY.

Before Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court this morning, Ernest Hadley was brought up on a charge of perjury.,.. The charge was, that he ■committed perjury in giving evidence on his own behalf in a charge of drunkenness on 7th June, when he was prevantedfcfroni boarding a. Brooklyn car on axTOunt of his alleged drunken condition. At the original hearing, Hadley made certain statements as to the quantity of drink that he had had before the alleged offence—that he had only had two "shandies" between 1 and 2 p.m.,, and that; he was sober when he j attempted to board the car for Brooklyn. ■ Inspector Marsack appeared for the police, and Mr. T. W. Hislop for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. Hislop urged that in such a case the indictment ought to allege the other drinks that the accused said he did not have, and that in that respect the iii- | dictment was bad. v His Worship said the charge alleged that he had more than two "shandies." Inspector Marsack urged that the accused was by no means prejudiced by' the form of the indictment. The police' ease was that accused swore to what he knew to be false. . The Magistrate overruled the objection, and ths hearing of the case was proceeded with. The police produced evidence to the effect that during the afternoon accused had had drink in Dixon-street, after the two "shandies" which he alleged was all the drink he had that day. Edwin L. Goodwin, accountant at Stent's Brewery, gave evidence to the effect that he and Hadley had drink on the piemis&s. Hadley refused stout, which had been opened, and was given beer, but witness could not swear that he drank it. Mounted Constable Wilson £aye evidence as to being in Stent's Brewery, on business, on the afternoon that accused was arrested. Accused was there at the time, ■ 3.40 p.m.; *fter a few minutes a drink was suggested, and Goodwin produced a bottle of c-oer and a bottle of stout. Hadley had two glasses of beer. Accused was in*the office when" witness left. Mr. Hislop: Were you sober?— Yes. Was Mr. Hadley sober?—He tvas not drunk. Mr. Hislop: That's very good of you. Witness said the bottles of beer and stout came in together. It was fairly light stuff. Mr. Hislop: Not so' strong, as Speight's? Witness: I don't know. , I seldom drink anything. * Mr. Hislop : My client says that you and Hadley left the place together. Witness: When I left the office Mr. Hadley was inside the building. There were two glasses of different sizes ; Hadley the bigger and witness the smaller. He knew Hadley.: Mr. Hislop: Ought you not to have been at Karori at that time? Witness: No. Inspector Marsack : He may have been employed on enquiries which we don't want the public to know anything about. j Accused pleaded ■ not guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial, bail being fixed at a personal bond of £50. ' ■ ■'-."■• .:,