GROSS PERJURY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13723, 13 April 1908, Page 5

GROSS PERJURY.

CASE OF "MISS" ROBINSON, SENTENCE OF FOUR YEARS. JUDGE'S SCATHING REMARKS. CREDULITY OF PUBLIC. By Telegraph.l'resa Association Copyright. (Received April 12. 4.20 p.m.) London, April 11. The trial of " Miss" Mary Robinson for perjury in connection with the Druce case has concluded. Mr. Avory, K.C., for the prosecution, declared that the offence was the worst possible, and was committed solely from sordid motives. Mr. E. Marshall Hall, K.C., for the defence, pleaded that the prisoner had been cruelly and wickedly duped, and was but a mere puppet in the hands of the master mind guiding the conspiracy. Her crime was indefensible, and he asked for leniency only in view of the special circumstances of the case.

Mr. Justice Walton said he did not wish to make any imputation against any particular individual in relation to the prisoner. He was satisfied that she had been tempted to commit perjury. He emphasised the very serious mischief arising from the promotion of companies for adopting and maintaining a shadowy claim' to a property, and the willingness of a public of infinite credulity to contribute money towards such schemes.

Further, Mr. Justice Walton commented on the institution of criminal proceedings to support a monstrous claim, and added that the woman Robinson was only acting doubtless on pressure, and , yielded to temptation. Her age was the only mitigating circumstance weighing with him, otherwise he would have imposed the maximum sentence of seven years.. Prisoner was sentenced to four years' imprisonment.. SOME OF THE EVIDENCE. \ I THE MYSTERIOUS TRUNK. ALLEGED LOSS OP DOCUMENTS. [FROM OUR' own CORRESPONDENT.] London-, March 6. Sir Albert de Rutzen sat again specially at Bow-street Police Court on Monday for the further hearing of the case against Mary Ann Robinson, who is charged with committing- perjury during the course of the recent proceedings against Mr. Herbert Druce. The evidence of the only remaining witnesses for the prosecutionwith the exception of those who are on their way from New Zealandwas of a. more or less formal character. Su Charles Mathews conducted the case on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The first witness called was Mr. Richard Cattarns, solicitor, of Basing hall-street. He stated that he was solicitor to the New Zealand Shipping Company. In. that capacity he jeceived a letter on March 29, 1907, from Mr. Kimber, . acting on behalf of the defendant, complaining of the allege! breaking oijen of a dox and the theft of certain documents, etc., on board the s.s. Rimutaka on the passage from New Zealand to England. The letter was written at Plymouth. Some correspondence ensued, and on April 15 a. writ was issued against the company, and was taken to witness' office in the usual v ay, for him to give an undertakii g to appear on behalf of the Shipping Company. The writ recited Mary Robinson, spinster, as the plaintiff, and the New Zealand (Shipping Company as the defendants. The writ set forth a claim for damages, and certain particulars were given to the effect that a trunk had been broken open arid seven letters from Charles Dickens to Miss Robinson, three letters from the fifth Duke of Portland, and a diary and ledger were said to have been stolen. Witness gave the undertaking asked for. On May 10 he* received a further letter from Mr. Kimber, on behalf of the defendant, stating that with reference to the company's application to the judge in the Commercial Court, he would be glad to hear whether inquiries had been made as to the loss of the documents in question, and that, in the event of their being recovered, the proceedings would be at once withdrawn and the costs agreed to before being taxed. On the following day witness replied to the letter, saving that, his clients could give no assurance such as was asked for, and that they were by no means satisfied that the documents referred to were over placed or. board their vessel. They would, ha said, in no way associate themselves with the alleged loss, and would leave it to Mr. Kimher's discretion as to whether he would proceed with the case. ' He added that he was not instructed to offer any inducement to discontinue the action. After some more correspondence the action v.as eventually discontinued, and the defendants' costs were taxed at £8 9s lOd. On August 17 witness received a letter from Mr. Kimber enclosing a cheque for that amount. Considerable difficulty had been experienced in getting the money, which was not paid until an order had been obtained from the High Court to examine the hidv as to her means. So the matter ended.

The Magistrate (to prisoner): Do you want tc ask any questions? Prisn ir: I had nothing: 1 c do with Mr. Kimber or the shipping oil ice at all. Nothing .it all, sir.

The Magistrate : This "rent lonian would not know anything about that. Prisoner: J didn't know anything about it. Mr. Kimbei did it to make a sensation more than anything. i never know there was anything done until I got a letter. I only had one letter -about it. The Magistrate: Hut have you no question von wonl'l like to ask hirii': Prisoner: No, sir, J have no question. The things lost in Wellington, and they never came on the boat. The captain told Mr. briber so, but he would not bolieve it.

Detective-Sergeant Helden, attached to the Thames Division, said lie was associated with Inspector Reid (who gave evidence last week) in the inquiries as to the alleged loss of documents on board the Itimutaka. In the course of the inquiry the prisoner showed him a trunk, from which the letters were alleged to have been stolen. It was a common tin trunk, such us might be bought anywhere for 5s 6d,, and the lock was also a common one. The prisoner said she had it specially made, and that it cost 30s.

John Henry Chadwick. a jeweller, of Great Queen-street, stated that the brooch produced in the course of the ease—the one given to her by the fifth Duke of T, »rtland —was of base metal. and was practically valueless. The. marquise ring also produced would not cost more than £1 retail. The stones were imitation.