CHARGE OF PEN JURY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13996, 31 August 1907, Page 10

CHARGE OF PEN JURY.

(Per United Pjiess Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, . August 30: At the Magistrate's Court, to-day David Baird was chargcd with perjury by having given fa.ke evidence at a,u inquest on an illegitimate child of wh-ich ho was the father. Accused pleaded "Guilty," and was remanded to the Supreme Court for sentence.

The inquest was opened on August 5, and on that occasion David Baird, a car and waggon lifter at tho Aldington Railway Workshops, stated on oath that ho was engaged to be married to the mother of tho child and that he was in the bedroom with her 30 minutes after the birth, but did not obtain any medical assistance He stated that ho went, to see a fire about an hour aftorwarrts, and on his return found that the child was dead. Ho donied that, ha was tho father of the child, and stated that he had never been intimate with the mother. Dr Inglis gave evidence at the opening of tho inquest that the child had been suffocated. The inquest was adjourned for the purpose of obtaining tho evidence of the child's mother, and after two ■ adjournments had been made the was well enough to be present. Before the proceedings commenced on Monday evening, Mr Anthony, on behalf of Baird,' stated that, the evidence given by him at the first inquest was incorrect, and that Baird wished to tell tho truth. Mr Bic-hop:' Ho committed perjury ? Mr Anthony: Yes. * Baird was culled, and said that he wished lo retract almost all tho evidence given by him at the Morgue. He was tho father of the child, wid he had no suspicion of any other man having been inlimate ' with the mother. The child was born shortly before he arrvied at tho mother's honac on Sunday, August 4. Ho advised her. to obtain medical assistance, but sho replied that she was "all right." Up lo tho time that he went to ton, between 5 and 6 o'clock, he did nothing in tho way of obtaining assistant. He lost his head, and did not know what he was doing. Mr Bishop: When did you becomo awaro that the child was dead? Witness: At about half-past 6, when I came back from tea.. Mr Bishop: How long after you heard of the child's death did you tell tho mother's sister of its birth? Witness: Immediately. Mr Bishop: You did not tell us that before, you know. Witness: At the first inquest I had no advice. Mr Bishop: But you did not need advice to tell the truth. I don't know what your object was in not telling the truth. You hat! nothing to fear, and' yot you told a tissue of iies. You remember at the Morgue I gave you a ohanco of correcting your evidence. Why did you not do it? Witness: I thought if I told the truth I would incriminate myself and the mother. Mr Bishop: Now. tell me—you need not answer if you think you will incriminate yourself,—do you know what caused the death of tho ohild? Witness: Only from the evidence that J)r Inglis gave at the inquest at the Morgue. Ml"Bishop: Am I to understand, then, that your statement to-day is voluntarily given, on the advice of your solicitor? Of course, you know that the matter will not end here. Witness: Yes, and I admit that I was on oath at tho Morguo when I gave evidence. _ Further evidence was taken, and tho jury,, after 10_ minutes' deliberation, returned a. verdict—" That death was due to suffocation brought on by the neglect of the.mother and tho putative father." In. addressing the jury Mr Bishop said that perjury was very rife in the courts, and it was absolutely necessary to protect' tho6o person's to whose unhappy lot the conducting of public inquiries fell. Perjury struck at the very root of the administration of justice, and should be dealt with sharply.