SEARL SEEKING SCALPS.

NZ Truth, Issue 170, 19 September 1908, Page 5

SEARL SEEKING SCALPS.

SEQUEL TO THAT WAGES CASE.

Cook and Copper Prosecuted for Perjury,

HE HAD BEEN BANKRUPT FOUR TIMES.

"Truth" Threatened With Legal Proceedings.

Edward John Searl, restaurant-keeper, of Willis-street, of. whom "Truth" recently said some . most unpleasant things, arising out of the recent case, De Laval v. Searl, is out \on the legal warpath. He is out after a lot of scalps, and made a start last Wednesday at the S.M. Court, whence figured as informant m a charge of perjury against Leo De Laval, Searl's ex-chef, who swore, and was believed by Magistrate Dr. McArlhur, that the restuarateur had swindled him of -his earnings. Not alone is, a perjury charge confined to Leo De Laval, who is a Cingalee, but one Constable Havelock, a witness m the case; is> also Jo- be prcsecuted for giving false testimony, and his case is set down for hearing next Monday, Mr T. M. Wjlford being engaged for the defence. Nor is Searl satisfied with' prosecuting' the ,cook and the copper, "Truth," for its utterances on. the mat- • ter, and on Searl generally, has received a letter or twp.from Lawyer Levvey, assuring us that, all going well m the meantime, we "first" be prosecuted for criminal libel. What on earth will happen after the „.'■ WHOLE STAFF HAVE BEEN( ■•'■'.■ GAOLED, \ -God alone only knows. In the meantime, however, we intend to make the most cf pur liberty.' "Verily Siearl has taken on a' big contract, and, as stated, a start was made last Wednesday, when De Laval was charged with perjury. Mr A. Dunn appeared for the informant and Mr T,oogood represented the defenxt- . ant, who' pleaded not guilty. Mr Dunn, m outlining the facts of the case, stated that the perjury alleged -was committed on August 2S, btfore Dr. J\!c-/ Arthur, S.M. It was a case m which De, Laval sued Searl for wages, from June 21 to July 21, and he swore all the signatures written by hint were signed at the same time, which was July 22. This was a material element m the case, because the case set up by De Laval amounted to fraud • against Searl. Evidence . would be forthcoming tfiat De Laval signed his name on different occasions, and ■ four witnesses would corroborate what Searl had sworn, , namely, thaf : the signatures had been written at various times. De Laval's evidence, at the time, said Mr Dunn, wus quite a surprise to Searl, who was not then prepared for such assertions. The Magistrate had said m his judgment that the .grossest perjury toad been committed on one side or other. Mr 'Toogood: I object unless the Magistrate's judgment, is put m. Mr Dunn : I will withdraw that remark. ■''■..'.. After a discussion as to whether it was ( necessary that . , . DR. McARTHUR, S.M., SHOULD GIVE EVIDENCE, it was decided to call him. The Magistrate was sworn, and stated that he had presided at the hearing' of the civil action, Die Laval against Searl on August 28. The wages receipt book, produced by 'the then defendant was on exhibit m the case. - ,"'•"' Mr Dunn: Did the question arise during the proceedings as to the time the five signatures written by De Laval were entered in' the book ?T-Yes, Le said, he signed them on the same occasion ; the moment he signed the five signatures they .were blotted. .-. Was the question when those signatures! | were written ' material to the point '!— \ Certainly they were. Mr Toogood : Did you say that "m my opinion the signatures were made at the one time" ?— Yes. Having given his testimony, Dr. McArthur was about to retire, when he was "ordered" not to leave the box until he signed his depositions. Magistrate Riddell seemed tj relish the idea of treating his brother beak as any common forgetful witness is • treated. Formal evidence was also given by A. H. /Holmes, clerk of the court. Searl.who described himself as the' manager of a cafe ; ihWillis-strc=t, testified that he was one of the defendants m the suit; De Laval v. E. J. St^rl and Lily Searl, heard m theVVellington Magistrate's -Court. The action was for wages. De Laval • had been m his emplcy four times.. He last employed him ■ on June 21, 1908, as chef at £H os per week. He paid De Laval £13 m wages. From the wages book - Searl quoted that he paid De Laval £3 5s on June 30, £3 5s on July 2, £3 5s on Juiy 16, £3 5s on July 20, and on July 22 £1 Bs. The signatures m the book were De Laval's. He signed his name ON THE DATES HE WAS PAID. The last signature was entered on July 22nd. He signed for the £1 8s then, and he made no complaint whatever. Mr Dunn : In his statement of claim he credits you with- £5 Us paid on account. Is that correct ?— No. • Searl went on to >say that he paid thi £1 8s m the oflice m the cafe', arid 1 hat a Miss Williams was within hearing as the door was ajar. Miss 'Williams had asked Searl if he v,as cn^a^ci, and ihe replied that he was, but reqUDst'eil her to wait, a minute. When De Laval left he made no complaint. He (Searl) was ptesent when De Laval gave his evidence. De Laval was sworn m the usual way, and declared that' he signed his-signa-tures on June 22nd. "That evidence," ■ said Searl, "is false." Searl next menticned the name of one '• George McLaine, a tailor, who came to his place, seeking a 1 job as cook, Jind a man named Pope. These were witnesses. whose evidence would be forthcoming. Searl went on to say that he thought all the signatures were signed m the shop, with the exception of the last ODe. He remembered that on July 20, his son Percy was present when De Laval signed-. - : Hc wrote his .name m the book on the cjay -he finished up., „-..., ; ; "I GAVE DE LAVAL NOTICE," added Searl, gratuitously. On the. morning of the 20 Ih De Laval received 10s on account from his son. George. "De Laval told me he had received 10s," said S.ealrl, when Mr Toogood rose to object. : . . Searl went on to say when he paid his chef he gave him the balance, £2 3.0s or £2 15s. ' i His Worship here questioned whether | the evidence was relevant or not. Was there any appeal ngainst the decision of j Dr. McArthur ? I Mr Dunn: No appjicaii >n was mtdi fey I an appeal. This is a ciiminal court and i I it will take no account of what was de- , I citletl m another case. We did not knrw j then the evidence we have now."' i His Worship : Why haven't you guc-.i i notice of appeal. I j Mr D.unn : We cannot. We can apply \. I for a rehearing. This is an entirely dif- : ferent proceeding. His Worship : The evidence is irrelevant, j Mr Toogood : The other case was liv- • ■ cided on the u-uestipn of facts. j : His Worship : The issue m this case | : is as simple as, A.B,C. I i Mr Dunn (to Scp.rl) : You swear that every one of tho five si niturjj; wcro . written on the same date opposite ihosu signatures ?— Yes, e\copli: g tv.e f.urvh. It was signc-d <_n July 20, ins'.ead (if July 22nd. Snarl went < n to vay Uiat the entry wns inadi' m \:< .-.• n.-.sh l.O:>i: i 'produced!. ■>r.d ;)])];('.,/< i ;• "•:•!!;;, ■Ui]y 2>U. Mr 'nio < ■'■ y ro'-.K-e". 1 .-.!--)-- i'"-..,v : '. nii'i-.. 1 o '.i.ncii-ii' : ! ,<r : ro;i, Mr ' . :-V.irl '.'— ' j tlon't know . :i I have to' answer thai '.

question. I appeal to his Worship.' I am asking you WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR CHARACTER. I presume you don't mind it being aired m this Court ? I shall appeal to the Magistrate if I am insulted m this way. - How many times have you been m the Bankruptcy Court ? Searl demurred to answering this question, but Magistrate Riddell ordered him, to speak. ~»*"I have been bankrupt four times," replied Searl. And at the present time you are an undischarged ' bankrupt ?, — Yes. Have you ever been m Court on any other occasion ?— I have. What for ?— Debt. On many occasions haven't you ? — Yes. Anything else ' besides that ?— Yesi Breaches of the "Licensing Act. How many times ?— Five, I thinK. ..'-. ■ Where was this ? — At Mastertori. ' Anywhere: else ?— No. -. .-■ Well, I won't go any further on that. You're well enough known. With reference to this charge, Mr Searl, you say these signatures were signed on the dates shown ip this book ?— The second last/was signed on to 20th and not the 22nji. In your evidence to-day, you have ' said De Laval signed his signatures on several dates ?— I ,have just stated when he signed them. , ...... His Worship : You answer the question and don't argue. ' Mr Toogood : You still swear that the second last payment was made on the 20th ?— I say it was paid on the 20th, although the 22nd appears, m the wages book. . „.'■■' His Worship : In whose handwriting are the entries made ? — ln mine. Searl at some great length explained HOW HE MADE THE ENTRIES from the wages ' book into the cash book. The £1 8s was paid m the offlce. He did not know.who was present when De Laval signea on June 30. McLaine and Pope and auoTihcr were present on other occasions. Only Searl and De Laval were present on July 22nd. Have you taiked much about this case ? —Yes, I have talked about it. Have you had a rehearsal ?— I don't know what . that is. Searl, proceeding, said that there was a desk m the. oflice, with a lock. The wages book was usually kept locked up m the desk, when it was ih the office. It was often m, the shop tor an hour or two. There was only one j Key to the door, and this was m - Searl's possession; When wages were to be paid, be usually sent one of his sons up .with the key to get the book. It was merely a coincidence that he had been alone with De Laval m the office on the occasion of the last payment. , ■•-.•. Searl was next re-examined by Mr Dunn. Wm. Pope, a carpenter residing at 130 Abel-Smrtu-street, said that m. July last lie used to call for his sister ,V;ho was waitress at Seal's. He saw Vc Laval one 'niHrfc about the middle of July after tLe t.-,jp v/a's closed, a.i;d Searl. was be.'.iind tl.o counter. When Do Laval came iatj fn tiliGji hewent over to the counter beside the citsh register, and taking up a book, said to Searl, "Here," and Searl replied, "Yes." 'De, Laval then, wrote something m the book' With a pen. i WITNESS KNEW THE WAGES BOOK, and had seen several employees sign it. He had not seen any money paid to De Laval when he signed the book. By Mr Toogood : He hadf not seen Do Laval actually sign the book, but he had leir.c.l over it with a pen m his hand. Would not swear De, Laval had actually, signed the book. \ George. Searl, one of complainant's sons, stated that he had been assisting at the shop for a period of five months. He knew the wages book. On July 20th he paid De Laval 10s and entered the amount m the cash b6ok. At the end of June he examined- the wages book and found that it had l:ccn - fully signed up, there being no blank spaces left. By Mr Toogood: For all he knew to the contrary, the last ; four signatures m the book might have been written at the same time. - Percy Searl, another son of the informant, said that djuring June and July last he, had been helping m his. father's cafe in 1 ; Willis-street. . He kept the shop cash book, and checked the other;:, including the wages book. On. July 20th he ' r. was going to buy sonic fish witrti a sovereign his (father had given him. As he was going through the shop Searl and De Laval were there. Searl sent him up to get the wages book, : giving him the • key of the desk. He could not ° find the book, and when he came down he found it on , the counter. The witness then went into the dining room and brought the ink. Searl then. 'asked him for the sovereign, arid then used it to pay De Laval, giving the witness the exact amount for- the fish. This happened m the morning. The witness checked the wages, book on the . night, of July?2otli: All" De Laval's -signatures were then, m the book. He noticed then that an entry had been made for the tJ2nd, while the money had been paid on the 20th. ' ' , By iMr Toogood : Witness saw De Laval SIGN THE FOURTH SIGNATURE —the first of the two dated July 22. He thought it was m the morning that he saw De Laval append his signature to the book. George McLaine was called, but failed to answer. Mr Dunn said that the evidence which the witness McLaine could furnish was absolutely essential to his case. This witness had* been m attendance during the morning, but had then complained of being unwell. ■':■'■' His Worship said that McLaine should have notified; the Court: of his inability to attend.' ■ . ■ ' ■ .. ' . : Mr Dunn, m applying for an adjournment until the next day, undertook to have McLaine m attendance, even if a warrant had to be taken out for his asrest to attain that object. His Worship adjourned the hearing of the case until Wednesday next. .