CHARGE OF PERJURY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12481, 22 April 1901, Page 3

CHARGE OF PERJURY.

HUSBAND AND WIFE. ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. At the Magistrate’s Court, on Saturday, the charge of perjury against Robert Wilson Hood and Annie Hood was heard. In March a sittings of the Court had been held at Culverden, and Clara Clark, a servant in the employ of Robert Wilson Hood, proprietor of the Jollie’s Pass Hotel, had sued him for £74 10s, money alleged to have been due to her as wages. The case was adjourned)' from time to time, and concluded on April 13. At the end of it Mr Bishop, S.M., instructed the police to prosecute R. W. Hood and his wife 'tor perjury, and they were formally charged, but remanded till Saturday morning, when, before Mr R. Beetham, S.M., Robert Wilson Hood was charged with, on March 13, 1901, ’at a sitting of the Magistrates Court, at Culverden, having committed perjury in a civil action, wherein Clara Clark was plaintiff and' himself defendant, by swearing that “I distinctly remember paving two cheques to the plaintiff on account of wages. There were two cheques, one for £8 and one for £2. The cheque for £8 was • paid on the 14th of Nov., 1898, the one for £2 on Dec. 25, 1897. Both these cheques were paid by me to the plaintiff. My wife was short of cash, and asked me for the cheques. I gave the cheques to Miss Clark myself. My wife was present, and saw mo give the cheques.” Mr Stringer, in opening the case for the prosecution, said the facts were simple. The accused bad sworn to giving certain cheques to Miss Clark, which had. been found to have been paid elsewhere. Mr Russell,' with him Mr Brown, appeared for the accused. H. W. Bishop, S:M., gave evidence to the effect that he had held a sittings of the Court at Culverden, on March 13, 1901, when the civil action Clark v. Hood was heard. He produced his notes of the evidence, which contained the words set down in ; the charge sheet. He had instructed the police to prosecute the accused and his wife for perjury. Clara Clark stated that she had been' a domestic servant in the employ of R. W. Hood in 1897 and 1898. She left his employ, early in 1899, and had brought an action against him to Recover wages which were due to her. ’ Hood had said he had given her two cheques, one for £8 and the ’other for £2. She had never received those cheques. Hood had said he had handed her the cheques in Mrs Hood’s presence, but that was not true. Henry George Clarke, manufacturing confectioner, Christchurch, said, he had had business relations with the accused, and had supplied him from time to time with vjoods. In December, 1898, he had received the cheque produced from the accused for £B, and witness had paid it into ids banking ■ account. ' ' > Eva Holland stated she had been in the employ of the accused from 1897 to 1899. ’She had received a cheque for wages for £2 from Hood in 1897. Witness had sent the cheque to her mother in Dunedin. She could not say whether the cheque produced was the same or not.

Henry. Gordon, sub-accountant at the National Bank, Christchurch, stated that lie recognised the cheque for £8 produced as being one that had been paid in by Clarke and Co. It was signed by R. W. Hood. . The cheque for £2 had passed through the National Bank,) Dunedin. Constable Bird gave evidence to the effect that he was dork of the Court at ■Culverden, and was present when the action Clark v. Hood was tried. He remembered the accused giving evidence, and witness had duly sworn the accused before Mr Bishop, S.Mi. This closed the case for the prosecution. ;

The accused, in answer to. the usual question, said he would reserve. his defence. He was then committed for trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court. Bail was allowed, the accused in his own security of . £3OO and two ’ additional securities of £l5O each. . - i ■

Annie Hoed, wife of the previous .. accused, was then charged with perjury, in that she had sworn, on March 13, 1901, at Culverden Magistrate’s Court, the following words : —I remember Mr Hood paying Miss Clark two cheques, one for £B, and the other for £2. I was short of cash, and asked Mr Hood for the cheques. They were paid in mv presence.” H. W.'Bishop, S.M., deposed that he had held a sittings of the Court on March 13, 1901, when the case Clark v. Hood was heard. The accused 1 had given evidence for the defence. She had sworn that two payments had) been made to the plaintiff by the defendant by cheque., She had said that the wages were always, as a rule, paid in cash, but had said—“l remember Mr Hood paying her two cheques, one for £B, and one for £2. I was short of cash, and asked defendant for the cheques. They are entered in my wages book.” She had produced the wages book, and showed the entry of the £2 on Dec. 25. The entry on Nov. 12 was for a cheque for £B. The accused had said that the cheques were paid to Miss Clark by Hood in her presence. The accused had also said—“ The book marked A is kept entirely by me, and is always entered) up from time to time as payments are made. The entries of payments made by me to plaintiff are true and correct. They total £6B 19s lid, and the whole of this was actually “paid by me, or in my presence; to her on the dates shown in the book. Clara Clark gave similar evidence as in the charge against the male accused, stating again that she had heard the first accused say—“l ‘ handed her two cheques, one for £8 and the other for £2.” She had not received those cheques. Henry George Clarke repeated his evidence on the former charge. Eva Holland and Henry Gordon also repeated their evidence. " • ; 4 In answer to the question, the accused stated that she would reserve her defence, and his Worship committed her for trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court, in Christchurch. Bail was allowed in the same amounts flis in the first ease.