PERJURY TRIAL

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9639, 20 April 1917, Page 4

PERJURY TRIAL

A SERIOUS POSITION SEVERE STRICTURES BY r CROWN COUNSEL. Prose Association HAMILTON. April 19. When Mr Luadon, counsel for tlie defence in tho charge of perjury against Tioko Hahaiparo had concluded his address to the jury in the Supreme Court this afternoon,' Mr Mays representing the Crown, rose #md said that counsel for the defence had told tho jury in effect that two of tho constables who had given evidence in court had committed perjury in an affiliation case' at Auckland, and he was in serious doubt what should he done in the matter. These constables had not been asked one question in tho present case relating to that matter, and he thought that ho (counsel) should have an opportunity to interview them. In his opinion it was olio of the most serious statements ever made to a jury and Mr London had so abused his position as counsel that it was a question whether it should not form the ground for an application for a new trial in case of an acquittal. Counsel said he also wanted to go into tho matter of the Terawhiti case, also referred to bv counsel for tho defence, as one of the witnesses concerned in that case had not been asked one question concerning it. His Honour said ho had intended to direct the jury not to consider tho whole of counsel’s address delivered between 10.30 and 12.30 as being wholly beside the case.

Mr Mays said that he had been informed that the statement referred to was absolutely and totally a perversion of facts, in regard to tho affiliation case.

His Honour; “Shall I send the jury away until to-morrow morning?” Air Mays: “I think I am entitled to it. This is a serious matter, and serious enough to make an application for a new trial.” His Honour: “If it were not for the expenses incurred in connection with the case and difficulty for witnesses to attend, I should bo very much inclined to quash the whole proceedings.” Mr Mays: “It is a serious tiling to ask that a jury be dismissed without a verdict, but to say the least of it we are on the border line of abuses which would warrant a new trial.”

His Honour said that it was a most unfortunate thing that counsel for the defence should have allowed himself to be carried away and refer to tho matters. The witnesses concerned should have befn questioned in tho matter when in the box, and not allowed' to remain under the slur that they had been guilty of perjury. Mr Lundon: “I did not say that they had committed perjury.” Mr Mays: “You did so in effect.” The case was then adjourned until 10 o’clock next morning.