CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16550, 28 May 1917, Page 7

CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

CHARGE OF PERJURY. • JURY FAIL TO AGREE. A farmer, ' William Gordon; (Mr. Ostler) was charged before Mr. Justice Stringer I at the Supreme Court on Saturday with i committing perjury" during the hearing of I a civil claim against him at the Magisi trate's Court on December 12. • On that ! occasion he was sued by one Mary Helen | Keogh to recover £25 which had allegedly j been lent to him by the plaintiff. The i magistrate gave a verdict for the plaintiff. j The accused was alleged to have committed perjury by swearing that lie did j not meet the plaintiff at the office of Mr, IF. D. McLiver, solicitor, on April 29, i 1915, that he did not remember Mr. j McLiver giving him a cheque for £25, that ; he did not remember endorsing the cheque and obtaining £25 in cash, and that he did j not remember giving or lending £25 to one j Frederick Stevens. He pleaded not j guilty. The Crown's case was outlined by the i Hon. J. A. Tole, K.C., who said the ! accused asked Miss Keogh for a loan, and I she made on arrangement- to meet him at 1 the office of Mr. McLiver. The latter, on I her behalf, drew, a cheque fo- £25, and ' i Gordon, who required cash, endorsed it, i and was handed cash by Mr. McLiver. j Later, she asked Gordon for her money, I and he said that ho had secured the loan i for a man named Stevens, and he would 1 j get the £25 from him. Miss Keogh sued I Gordon for its recovery. At tho hearing I ' in the Auckland Magistrate's Court ho ' made the statements that were the subject 1j of the charge. _ . After the first Crown witness had given . j his evidence, counsel for tho defence, in ' I asking for the case to bo dismissed, sub--1; mitted there was no evidence in law to ' | show that a person, after having made a '; false statement and having retracted or ' i qualified that statement, was guilty of per- '! jury. Gordon had stated that he did not I I remember doing certain things, and that '; absolved him from any criminal respon- ! | nihility. 5 1 His Honor said he could not take the i j case away from the jury at this stage. ! i Further evidence for the Crown was called. 1 j Mr. Ostler called the accused to give evi- '; dence. After lengthy consideration the ' jury failed to arrive at an agreement, and 5 a new trial was ordered. 3 . a CHARGE AGAINST A MAORI. DISAGREEMENT OF JURY. After deliberating for nearly five houn the jury disagreed in the case of a Maor named Matin Kohu (Mr. Reed, K.C., witl !.;.„ lf_ t « «_JV L- .... _! J 'il

him Mr. Lennard), who was charged with having committed an unnatural offence at Tauranga. A new trial was ordered.