MAN’S HONEST MISTAKE

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 December 1937, Page 4

MAN’S HONEST MISTAKE

NEW TRIAL REFUSED.

[per press association.]

WELLINGTON, December 9.

That judgment had been obtained or alternatively the result of the trial affected' by the fraudulent misconduct of the plaintiff in committing perjury as a witness was an allegation made in the Supreme Court at Wellington in support of an application by the defendants for a new trial of the case in which Hart Spear, a Wellington eye specialist, proceeded against Annie Newham and Clara Rowlett, of Wellington, spinsters. The case was heard in March, 1936, when Spear was awarded £l4l/12/- damages against the defendant.

After hearing argument in support of the application by Mr W. H. Cunningham, and in opposition by Mr T. C. A. Hislop, who explained that Spear had made an honest mistake, the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) said: “I don’t think I. would be justified in imputing perjury to this man. After all, perjury must be proved cogently. There is no doubt he made a mistake, a grievous mistake, but that does not necessarily amount to perjury by any means. Before a new. trial can be granted, there must be misconduct, but an honest mistake does not amount to misconducjt. Of course, that does not mean that judgment for the amount must stand; it cannot.” His Honor reduced the amount from £ 141/12/- to £43/12/-.