BAILIFF CONVICTED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20324, 3 August 1929, Page 16

BAILIFF CONVICTED.

FALSE STATEMENT MADE.

SUMMONS NOT SERVED

VERDICT OF GUILTY RETURNED

A charge of making on oath a false statement, which, if made in a judicial proceeding would have been perjury, was denied hy a private bailiff, Julius Barth (Mr. Schramm) before Mr. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court yesterday. Tho charge concerned a sworn affidavit made by accused to the effect that he had served a summons on a man, whereas it was alleged he had not, rlnno so. "Tho whole system of Court procedure depends upon a statement like this being correct and accepted us correct," said Mr. Hubble, for tho Crown. "One can imagine the confus.on that would arise if judgments were obtained against people without them being actually served with a summons. Although in this case the man alleged to have been served did eventually gei the summons a few days later, this false affidavit was made. It would

seriously affect commercial people if false affidavits could be made in the Courts."

Mr. Hubble said the charge arose out ol a false affidavit of service regarding a civil summons issued from tho Magistrate's Court. It was most important that if a summons were issued against a person, it should be actually served upon him before any judgment, was given against him. Before judgment by default could he entered against anyone an afii davit of service tad to ho proved. The Court had to be satisfied that the summons was actually served, and to this end it bad to have the statement on oath of the person who served the document. Accused was a private bailiff employed in serving summonses. Me made an affidavit stating ho had served a summons on a man and a woman who were being sued by a loan company for money owing. In fact, accused had served only tho woman, handing tho second summons to her also, asking her to deliver it to the other party. Rose Elizabeth Bamber stated that when accused called at her house to servo summonses upon her and her son-in-law ho handed her ono. When told her son-in-law was in hospital ho said, "You will do," and also gavo her tho second summons, asking her to pass it on. Witness said she did not say her son-in-law was too ill to bo seen.

William Green, son-iu-law of tho previous witness, said ho refused to accept the summons when Mrs. Bamber took it to tho hospital, knowing it was not legally served unless handed to him direct by the person making tho servico. Accused admitted leaving Grcon's summons with Mrs. Bamber, but he stated she told him her son-in-law was too ill to bo seen. Witness said Mrs. Bamber promised to deliver the summons and on receiving her promise he left the paper with her.

Tho jury returned a verdict of guilty, Sentence was postponed.