GUILTY OF PERJURY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21328, 1 November 1932, Page 11

GUILTY OF PERJURY

CIVIL ACTION SEQUEL STATEMENT OHALLENGED EVIDENCE PROVED FALSE REMANDED FOR SENTENCE A charge oi having committed perjury jin Supreme Court proceedings was pre--1 ferred against Ernest Cheadle, aged 30, j carrier and contractor (Mr. Allan i Moody), before Mr. Justice Herdman in I the Supreme Court yesterday. The charge . against Cheadle was that on August 12, during the hearing of a civil claim for damages by Michael Walter Karews against Arthur Stanley Holton, he swore '■ on oath, "I remember Tuesday, February 23, of this year; I saw an accident just before one o'clock; I was walking up Symonds Street and was very nearly opposite the accident; I was at most 15 yards lowet down;" which assertion he knew to be. false and intended to mislead the Court. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Meredith, said the allegation against Cheadle was that ho had stated that he was an eyeI witness of the accident, when as a matter i of fact lie was not there at all, but in another part of the town. Cheadle was the only eye-witness produced at tho hearing, and tho result was an award of £lll6 for tho plaintiff. The obvious suggestion, said Mr. Meredith, would be that in all probability Cheadle received a proportion of the damages awarded.. If there was a witness who came forward and said, "Yes, I saw the accident," then, if impartial, he naturally carried tremendous weight. The Civil Proceedings Papers showing that judgment had been given for the plaintiff Karews against Holton for £lll6 were produced by a Supreme Court clerk. The crier of ths> Court, John D. Keen, testified that Cheadle had given evidence on oath that he saw the accident from almost directly opposite. The solicitor who had cross-examined Cheadle in the previous proceedings, J. F. W. Dickson, gave similar evidence that Cheadle had sworn lie actually saw tho accident. Percy James Watts, manager of the Standard Insurance Company, corroborated this. In cross-examination, Watts said the case was an extraordinary one. He came to the hearing because his company was interested in the case. It held the cover over defendant's car. His company had not yet paid out, and had applied for a new trial. Arthur Stanley Holton, carrier, said ho had heard Cheadle give evidence as an eye-witness. He did not see Cheadle on the scene after the accident. Last " ' August Cheeidle asked witness who had -- told him that he (Cheadle) was receiving , £350 for giving evidence. Witness said ho had not heard anything about it. Visit to the City Charles ICdward Hagues, tramway motorraan, said he had been first on the ; T scene after tho accident and aid r#>t see accused. Cheadle spoke to him in Queen Street in September, saying he had got himself into trouble. A Dalmatian had 6een the case reported, and asked him what he was getting out of it. Cheadle in a joke replied, "About £200." Cheadle! said it was a pity witness did not re-' member seeing him at tbe accident. In answer to Mr. Moody, witness said there had been no attempt to bribe him. Positive evidence that Cheadle was not present immediately after the accident was given by Thomas G. Botterill, traffic inspector, who said he had known Cheadle; for about eight years. John Peter Sinkovich, labourer, of Henderson, said he had driven in to ; town with the accused on a Tuesday in February. During the whole of the day he was in accused's company, >nd they did not go up Symonds Street. A number of witnesses gave evidence of having euen Cheadle at their places of business early in the afternoon of the day of the accident, February 23. A hospital official stated that Karews*, the victim of the accident, had been in hospital from February 23 to April 12, and that Cheadle had been in the same ward from March 8 to 16. A Solicitor's Evidence Andrew Sinkovich, orchardist/of Henderson, said that when discussing the case with Cheadle the latter told him he had got £l5O out of it, adding afterwards that he said that for fun. # A't witness' request Cheadle demonstrated how the accident happened. Later Cheadle asked witness if be had made ahy statement to Mr. Fawcett, solicitor, and witness said he had told Fawcett just what Cheadle had said. Cheadle said the taxi-driver did not have the money to fight tho case, so another man put in money to fight it. If he won lie would share equally with the taxi-driver, and if he lost the taxidriver would pay nothing. Robert E. Fawcett, solicitor, said ha had seen Cheadle at, Northcote on August 24. Cheadle admitted having told Andrew Sinkovich over the telephone that lie was getting £l5O out of the case. He had said this twice, and afterwards explained that it wan in fun. Cheadle said that for £250 he would hand over evidence that would convict a financier ,vho was at the back of the case. Witness refused threo times, and then Cheadle said it was merely a trap for witness. Cheadle persisted that he had seen the accident. In answer to Mr. Moody witness said ho had spent a considerable time over thii case, about 70 hours. Counsel: From whom do you look for reward ? Witness: I am instructed in the matter of a new trial. A new trial had been applied for. Ilavo you filed an application for a new trial?—lt is impossible for me to file tho paper while Mr. Dickson is solicitor on tho papers. Comment, by Judge Detective-Sergeant P. J. Doyle said : that Cheadle when arrested pointed out j threo different places as the site of the i accident, his final choice being 10 yards j away from the spot. Cheadle said lie met I a girl afterwards and told her all about the accident, but he refused to dispose her name. He alleged that the girl wculd deny having seen him at all. In cross-examination witness agreed that Cheadle might have made a genuine mistake about tho place, but the fact that ho had threo "shots" a*, -it made witness suspicious. In addressing tho jury, Mr. Moody claimed that this was a case of an insurance company trying to avoid its responsibilities if it possibly could. The case rested on tho weakness of the evidence for the prosecution. "I venture to say that during the present sessions no jury has had a more important an:l serious case to consider than the present one," said His Honor. The suggestion had been made by the Crown that there had been a conspiracy to procure a verdict by means of false evidence and that tho accused had bee:ri a willing tool in that conspiracy. They were all aware how vitally necessary it was that • the evidence tendered by witnesses should be true. If Sinkovich's evidence was to be accepted the jury was entitled to conclude that Cheadle could not have wibnesscd the accident, Sinkovich's evidence was corifirraed by a number of witnesses. The jury returned with a verdict p? ••• guilty, and the prisoner was remanded _ for sentence.