ALLEGED PERJURY.

Otago Witness, Issue 1582, 18 March 1882, Page 23

ALLEGED PERJURY.

The hearing of the charge of perjury against George Wybar was resumed. Mr F. Chapman appeared for Mr Stout, for the prosecution, and Mr MacDermott for the defence. i „ „ Mr MacDermott referred to the case recently heard against Constable O'Shea, in which Mr Carew, having heard the defendant's witnesses, was satisfied on the .evidence that there had been some misapprehension or misstatement or colouring of the evidence given by the witness for the prosecution, and therefore refused to commit. On the authority of that case he intended to prove that Mr Donald Reid applied to Mr Justice Williams secretary for a copy of the Judge's notes. He and John Reid no doubt got that copy to enable him to swear what the evidence was. He (Mr MacDermott) had also got a copy of the Judge's notes, and had found that they did not justify the evidence that had been given. He would also call a person who had taken notes during the trial to contradict the evidence given for the prosecution. Further than this, he would show that the £1500 alleged to have been advanced to Wybar had not been advanced, and that was material evidence with regard to whether the forms had been signed when blank or not. Evidence he would call would show that the evidence for the prosecution was entirely untrue; that before the forms were signed there was a meeting between Reid and Wybar, and that the amount due by Wybar was a paltry sum of £50. The whole object of the present proceedings was to whitewash John Reid and the Standard Company. Mr Chapman said that the decision of Mr Carew had nothing to do with this case. Ifc was a matter of indifference whether there was or was not a shilling due to the Company. If there was nothing due, and Wybar tried to strengthen the case by perjury, he must be committed. . Mr MacDermott called the following evidence :— . Charles Reid deposed: I am manager of the Standard Property Investment Society. In 1876 I was, I think, also manager of the Standard Insurance Company, and so continued for two or three years. With regard to the Investment Society, I am still. Mr MacDermott: Will you produce the books showing the entries of moneys drawn by John R. Reid and advanced by him to Wybar? _ ' Mr Chapman : I object to this, because John R. Reid has said nothing about the books. Reid has not been examined as to that, and he 1 should have been so examined if it is desired to contradict him. This is only for the purpose of throwing mud at Mr John.R. Reid. Mr MacDermott desired to show that at the time the alleged form was signed there was no such sum as £1500 due, and that it was a piece of impudent invention to allege that £1500 was'due. After discussion, Mr MacDermott put the auestion as follows :— "Have you any book of le Standard Property Investment Society which shows the moneys paid or advanced by John Reid to George Wybar?" % Mr Chapman: I object to that ; it does not bear on any issue. My!) friend has raised a fictitious question, and this may bear upon it ; but it does not bear, upon any question before the Court. ' Mr MacDermott .wished to have ,the evidence taken, for he expected His Honor would tell the Jury that such a case never ought to have been presented. : The Bench upheld Mr Chapman's objection to the evidence, and declined to allow the question to be put. .Mr MacDermott asked the witness to produce the share-list of the Company. Mr Chapman objected to the question on* the same ground, and the objection was susThomas Riddell Dodd (a clerk) was called, and deposed : I know Mr John Reid and Mr Wybar. I was present at an interview which took place between them. Mr Chapman : Was this a matter upon which Mr John Reid was examined ? Mr MacDermott : John Reid can be called again to contradict him. I propose to prove that this man, who swears that before the execution of these forms in blank— for we know they were executed in blank Mr Logan : There is no evidence of that ; the evidence is the other way. Mr MacDermott repeated that Mr John Reid might contradict him, and if he did, he (Mr MacDermott) would undertake to have Mr Reid prosecuted for perjury. He proposed to show that the money due to Reid was of a trifling amount, and that Wybar could have had no object, no interest, and_ no motive for swearing falsely. It was most important that the whole of the circumstances connected with the case should be thoroughly investigated. The Bench ruled that this examination was irrelevant. . Mr MacDermott remarked that every point raised had been decided against the accused. Mr Chapman considered the remark imMr MacDermott : "Itis a fact." Mr MacDermott several times called Mr John Reid, who was not in attendance, not having been subpoenaed, and remarked that he was not permitted to call evidence to show that the money which John Reid said was due was in fact not due. Mr Chapman objected to his learned friend indirectly lecturing the Bench. The adjournment was made for the sole purpose of enabling Mr MacDermott to call Mr Haggitt, and now Mr Haggitt was not called. Mr MacDermott said he wanted Mr John Reid. If he could only get Mr John Reid Mr Logan expressed the opinion that it was unbecoming in a solicitor of the Supreme Court to be continually throwing out these remarks against absent men, and in fact it was unbecoming in a gentleman. S. Spragg, reporter, deposed : I was present in the Supreme Court at the trial of Ziele and another v. Reid and another. I heard the evidence given by Wybar, who, when under crossexamination, said that if they could produce a witness who had filled up the forms some days before the date on which they were said to have been signed, Wybar would say that he did not see the writing but only the printing. Cross-examined : I was present at the examination in chief, but Ildid not write it out, because it appeared to be in accord with the declaration and the opening speech of counsel. I have no doubt, but I have no recollection, that Wybar must have been examined on the question as to whether those documents were signed in blank. My note of Wybar's evidence as to whether the documents were signed in blank is as follows :•— " He would swear " Mr MacDermott objected to this. If evidence were to be given from the notes he submitted that the notes must be put in in their entirety. Merely garbled ettrajls were not to be given. Mr Chapman submitted that tho whole evidence of this particular point should be given. The whole thing depended upon the Witness continued his evidence in reference to Wybar's statement as follows :— " He would b wear that the mortgage deed was not iilled up before he signed it. If a clerk would swear

that he filled up a mortgage U days before it was executed he would swear he did not see the writing, but only the printing, on the forms. He did not go to Mr Smith's office with Mr Donald Reid." Wybar was cross-examined severely as to whether he had made true > or false statements on former occasions. Wybar stated that he had sworn that the mortgage m question was a bonajide document. He said he had told a lie on oath in the Licensing Court. , _ , , , Mr MacDermott said that the Bench had ruled him out of order in putting what were called irrelevant questions. He objected to Mr Chapman cross-examining with regard to these irrelevant subjects, which were gone into tor the simple purpose of heaping disparagement on the head of the accused. The question was not pressed. Mr MacDermott handed to the Bench copies of two statements made by John R. Reid, in connection with his bankruptcy, before the Registrar, remarking that there were contradictions in them which proved that Mr Reid was an absolutely and utterly unreliable witness. , , No further evidence was adduced, and the Bench committed the accused for trial, allowing him bail in two sureties of £75 each and his own bond of £150. The Court then rose.