CHARGE OF PERJURY.

Otago Witness, Issue 1581, 11 March 1882, Page 11

CHARGE OF PERJURY.

At the City Police Court on Saturday, before Messrs J. Logan and J. Brown, J.P.s, George Wybar was charged with having, on the 23rd January, 1882, committed wilful and corrupt perjury in the testimony which he gave upon oath as a witness at the trial of the case of Ziele and White v. D. and J. R. Reid, heard in the Supreme Court, in swearing that his signatures subscribed to two memoranda of mortgage were affixed before the documents had been filled in. Mr F. R. Chapman appeared for the prosecution, and Mr MacDormott for the defendant.

Mr MacDermott applied for an adjournment until Monday, on account of the length of time the hearing of the case would take, but the application was refused. Arthur David Harvey, deputy -registrar of the Supreme Court at Dunedin, produced the record in the case of Ziele and White (trustees in the bankruptcy of George Wybar) v. D. and J. R. Reid.

Henry Wadie, usher of the Supreme Court, gave evidence as to administering an oath to George Wybar during the hearing of the case of Ziele and White v. D. and J. R. Reid. # Donald Reid deposed: I am a solicitor practising at Tokonmiriro. I know the defendant, and I remember being present at the trial of the action of Ziele and White v. D. and J. R. Reid, in which I was a defendant. When the defendant was giving his evidence, the documents produced wore placed in his hands, and he was examined upon them. He swore that the money* mentioned in a deed of mortgage were not due to me as alleged. He said that there was no writing in the documents produced when he signed them, and that they were simply blank forms. He was cross-examined by Mr Stout very severely touching his testimony on these points, and he adhered to his former statements. The defendant's statement with reference to the documents being blank forms was, I can say, absolutely false, for these reasons :— On the 30th of April, 1880, I called with my brother, J. R. Reid, on Mr Wybar, at his hotel, Kensington, and had a > conversation with him in reference to oertain moneys he owed my brother, He mentioned that the total amount due was £1500— £1390 principal and £110 interest — and I asked him what he intended to do towards payment, He said he would do anything I might suggest. I proposed a mortgage on his property mmy favour. He then gave me my instructions to prepare a mortgage' On the Ist or 2nd of May I drafted the mortgage, and handed it to a olerk to be engrossed, After engrossment I compared the deed with the draft, and I then came to Dunedin. I saw the accused, and took him to Sievwright and Stout's office for the purpose of arranging when the money was to be repayable. I filled in on the deed when the money was to be re* payable, and the dates when the interest was to be paid. Wybar signed it afterwards.. The accused swore that he did not see me in his hotel on the 80th of April, 1880, with reference to this mortgage, and said that I just called in for a glass of beer. He denied having handed me an authority; to receive rent, and he also denied having signed such authority, both of which statements are false.— Cross-examined : My brother never forwarded to me blank forms of deeds already signed.

D. L. Popplewell, law clerk, in the employ of last witness, engrossed the documents produced. They were not signed at the time he engrossed them.— Cross-examined : He had no distinct recollection whether the name "George Wybar" was on either of the forms when they first came into his possession. He might have engrossed the document produced after they had been signed, but he thought if the signature had been there he should nave remembered the fact. He did not remember where he got the forms, but he believed they Were in the office at the time, for forms were kept in stock. — Ke-examined: When he had land transfer documents to engross he always took clean forms, a stock of which were in the office, and over which he had control. It would be quite out of the common way that a signed document should be placed in his hands to engross upon. If such had been done he could not have failed to recollect the circumstance.

At this stage it was agreed to adjourn until 2.30 p.m. to-day, bail being allowed in accused's own recognisance of £100, and one surety of a similar amount. At the City Police Court on Monday, before Messrs J. Logan and J. Brown, J.P.s, the hearing of the adjourned charge of perjury against George Wybar was resumed. Mr F. R. Chapman appeared for the prosecution, and Mr MacDermott for the defendant.

John Russell Reid, clerk, deposed that he knew the accused Wybar, and was present at the trial Ziele and another v. Reid and another in the Supreme Court, in which action he was defendant. Recollected Wybar being examined as to whether, when the mortgage referred to was signed, there was money lent by the defendants to him. The accused's evidence went to show that there was no money due, or lent at the time. Witness remembered the documents produced being shown to Wybar in the Court ; he identified and acknowledged the signatures, and distinctly swore that they were blank forms when they were signed. This statement he adhered to in cross-examination. The statement sworn to by the accused as to no money being due, or lent at the time, was false, as was also that as to the documents being blank forms when signed. Witness was present when the documents were signed, and was the attesting witness. He received the documents from his brother (Mr Donald Roid). Could not say whether by hand or by post, but they were not then signed by Wybar, and were filled up as they were at the present time. On receiving them took them to accused to get them signed. Witness was present when instructions wore originally given to his brother to prepare them, some time in April, ISBO, about a fortnight before the mortgage was signed. Cross-examined : Witnoss' recollection of Wybar's evidonce was quito distinct. He swore positively that there was no writing on the documents, without any qualification. Witness could not say whether he qualified this statement by any remark such as " To the best of my recollection," or "So far as 1 saw," but did not think he did. Witness on being further interrogated said that he was prepared to say that there was no such qualification. Mr MacDermott : If Mr Haggitt were put in the box, and said, " I swear that the mortgage now shown mo, and dated the 18th May, 18S0, had no writing on it that I saw," are you prepared to contradict him ? Witness: No.

Mr MacDcnuott : If Mr Haggitt were to .state that in a subsequent part of Wybar's examination he said " There was no writing on either of the forms I signed that I saw," you are not prepared to contradict him ?" Witness : No.

Witness still affirmed that his recollection of the evidence was distinct. Wybar was examined, however, so often on those points, and equivocated t>o often, lhr,t it would be impossible to givo tlie exact words of every answer. Witness did not profess to do so. Flis impression was that Wybar madu Ihe insertions as to the forms more th.%n twice, but liq would noli

awear it. With Regard l t6 the statement as to no money having been lent, Wybar produced documents professing to show that he had- paid witness several sums on account of money lent him. Witness believed Wybar acknowledged having received £1110 from him, money lent. Witness did not procure the forms of mortgage, and did not send the forms to his brother. Could not say whether he sent any forms at all to him at that time ; might have done so. Had frequently sent forms to his brother since leaving the employment of Messrs Sievwnght and Stout. Could not say he djd. so in tne! month of April. He never got the accused to sign a mortgage or any other instrument m blank. Had a mortgage from Wybar before the 18th May, 1880, which he destroyed.. The amount advanced was not specified in tne deed. The mortgage was taken whilst the money was being advanced to Wybar. Witness would not say they were his own moneys. Mr MacDermott: Whose moneys were Witness objected to answer this question, and appealed to the Bench, saying that it was asked for the purpose of casting more mud at him. • i j.i -a Mr Logan : We shall leave it to the witness'discretion to answer or not. Mr MacDermott: Then, your Worships, I must simply retire from the case. What I want to do 'is to smash this witness eridence Witness said that to answer the question he would have to go into a very long statement. His objection was not in the least that it would criminate himself. Witness eventually stated that the money he lent Wybar in the first instance belonged to the Standard Investment Society— the whole of it, £1690. Witness was at that time a clerk in the Society, n Had not the permission, of the Society to lend it. Was not the treasurer of the Society, but as clerk had charge of the moneys. Did not know whether, there was a treasurer ; never saw one. Witness was a clerk there between three and four years. It was not his duty to lend the money to Mr Wybar, hence the late action against witness; Witness did'not, tell the Sooiety that he. had lent the money, but repaid it. Mr MacDermott : What 1 repaid the money you had embezzled? ( < • ■ ■ax-, /-ti . T ~Ui*n4- wim» Wnrohinu. t.rt

Mr Chapman:, l objeot, your Worships, to these slanderous and , unfounded imputations being thrownput by my learned Mend, The-.witness, alsp, appealed ,to the Bench to be protected, .from, insult. i , , . Mr Logans I think, such .a remark is altogether uncalled ,-for. ' , Witness- continued t Could notsay how long the money had beeriilent to Wybar before he (witness) repaid it to 1 the Society. Could not cay if it( was / morel than two years., Thefull £1690 had been; lenUto Wybar before witness repaiditJu.lt had.beenlent in various sums, at intervals perhaps of a few days. ■ It would be' impossible .to fix • dates. Could . not say what time elapsed .between .the first and last advances. '.'There, was 1 no audit of the Investment Society's, tbobks during the time the money was being (advanced;, >i\ Witries'sr presumed there were several a'udita.befbre he repaid .the money. 1 There .were ■audits yearly. About 11 months before witness repaid.' the :inonay there was. ani audit. ; I The. last advance was not more than a year fromithe'lastfaudit.' 1, Witness first saw the deeds (produced) in their present form either in that , Court ..OS the Supreme .Court.,. , Saw. 1 them filled, up without, ;Wiybar's signature on the very iday, .he afterwards signed them.. Wit- . ness couldfflot.say on what day, the documents were signed, 1 or whether, they .were, signed ■ on the 18f&,{te;(H?hB l .dato. filled in). jWitness did not fillitbe- datein, The date j j 18th April "■ was not ( fi}led.in when.Wybar signdd it, and witness, did. not know whether the year was either. i!,Would,.npt say the, deeds were not signed p» .the j.Bth. The ,date was generally filled inj after a, deed, was signed. That m question; witness believed, his brother Donald, filled iq ; , it' looked like his' writing.- Witness did not,, think the latter was in t town the day the deed' was signed. , Could not say if he communicated ,tq him the. .date. 'Mr Donald Reid was in {town a few days after the deeds were signed. jWjitness gave .the documents to Mr Callani the, solicitor,, after they were signed. Could not say that it ,was on the same day, or that he brought the deeds home with him. 1 They were signed in a public-house, and witness could not ,say where he went afterwards. He might very possibly have. taken them to Mr Callan's on the same day. They were signedon a Saturday, in the forenoon, in Mr Cousens hotel. .The latter was not in the; room when the deeds were signed, but he was very shortly before.!,. ' Witness did' not think Cousens brought; up the pen and ink, or that he was asked to. .Witness did not think of 'getting Mr Cousens to 'witness, the signature ; it, did not occur ,to him to do so, ' Witness 5 statements when examined before the trustees in bankruptcy were quite true. „..., Mr MacDermott here handed m the witness' testimony on that occasion in evidence. Mr MacDermott : Is this statement, " The money was all mine when I lent it to Wybar;" true or false? Witness : It is true or false, as you like to take it. I eventually paid the money. Mr MacDermott : Is the following true : '• I wanted my brother to be trustee, as the money belonged to my wife " ? Witness : That also is true or false, just as you like to understand it. Mr MacDermott: Was this your wife's money? Where did she get it? Witness : It was my wife's money because I chose to make it over to her. I did not actually hand , it to her. Mr MaqD'ermott : Did you make your wife a present of any other money belonging to the Society? Witness objected to this question as msultW Mr MacDermott: Well, I ask you with profound respect. Mr Chapman: I object to these sneers, your Worships. After some further disputation the witness continued. He could not say whether' he received from Wybar a, sum of £441 on account of the Society in October, 1878. Mr MacDermott : .Will you swear you did not receive' a cheque signed by Haggitt Bros, and Brent, for that' amount, and retain it in your possession October, 1877;, to the following April without entering it m the Company's books ? Witness : Yes, I will swear I did not. Re-examined : With reference to the original advance referred to, to Wybar, the latter applied to the Investment Society for a loan. Mr Macdennobt objected to this explanation as not touched upon in cross-examination. The Bench passed over the objection, and witness continued: Wybar applied to the society for a further charge of £400 on a second mortgage, on the security of some property at South Dunedin on which he intended to erect some buildings. The application was granted on condition • Mr MacDermott objected to these conditions being stated if they uxislt 1 in writing. This was not evidence m any Ren 1 ;, 1- ><it simply an explanation to clear the witn . A lengthy contention followed, and the witness was eventually allowed to proceed. The money was J.o be advanced on completion of the J&uildmg, .and while it was in course of erection

Wybar came into the office and aßked to draw something on account to pay for workmen or material. He was very pressing, and witness advanced him some on account. Witness after that made him several advances, and, when it got to two or three hundred pounds, drew a cheque for the amount, which he asked the Chairman to sign. This he refused to do, on the ground that Wybar had altered the plans of the buildings. [Mr Macdermptt again objected at some length.] Having then advanced r accused so much money, witness' was obliged to continue making advances, in order to secure the money he had .already advanced. Eventually Wybar could not repay the, money. He repaid £300 only, and witness had then to mortgage his own property to raise the money to repay the Society. His property was afterwards sold by the mortgagee. With reference to the mortgage, the signature to which had been alluded to in cross-oxamination, Mr Callan was acting for the lessee, and witness had instructions not to fill in the date. It was to bo dated before the lease, which was in course of preparation at that time.

This concluded the case for the prosecution, and

Mr MacDermott addressed the Bench at great length for the defence commenting severely upon the evidence of John Keid, both in that Court, and before the trustee in bankruptcy.

Mr Chapman replied on several of the points raised, and

The case was then further adjourned until Monday next, in order to enable the .defence to produce evidence. The accused was admitted to bajl as before.