A TROUBLED CONSCIENCE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2978, 12 April 1911, Page 6

A TROUBLED CONSCIENCE.

CONFESSION OF PERJURY. (Fbom Oub Own Coeeespondent.)

AUCKLAND, April 4

A sensational development took place in a maintenance case which occupied the attention of Mr C. 0. Kettle, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court last night. This action was brought to recover maintenance for the illegitimate child of a young girl, the defence being a denial of tibe paternity. Mr Hackett appeared for the complainant, and Mr Lundon for the defence. The case came before the court during last week, and Mr Kettle was engaged upon it on Saturday afternoon until 5 o'clock. When a witness named Guy, was called and questioned as to whether he had misconducted himself with the complainant at a particular date, which had an important bearing upon the case as far as the defendant was concerned, the witness strenuously denied that he had so misconducted himself, and was subjected to several hours' cross-exami-nation by Mr Lundon. When the hearing of the case was resumed last evening Mr London stated that he had a communication to make to the bench to the effect that the witness had confessed that the evidence given by tham last Saturday, when he denied having been guilty of misconduct with the complainant, was untrue, witness having signed a written statement to that effect. The witness was then called and admitted that his statement given on Saturday to the effect that he had not misconducted himself with complainant was untrue. He said that after he left the court on 'Saturday he had no rest, and his conscience troubled him to such an extent that foe determined to make a clean breast of the whole business. He therefore went to the residence of the defendant's father and told him what ho intended to do. The father refused to advise him, except to think the matter over, consult some reliable friend, and then take such steps as he considered proper. Yesterday morning the witness and defendant's father went to Mr Lundon's office, where a written confession was made by the witness and signed in the presence of Mr Lundon's managing clerk. Mr Hackett cross-examined the witness with regard to the confession for over two hours. He also asked to be allowed to call the father of defendant, to which Mr Lundon offered no objection. The father, who had been out of court while the witness was giving his evidence, was then called, and his statement practically confirmed what had already been deposed to. He was cross-examined at considerable length, and, after the first witness had been again examined, the hearing of the evidence closed at a quarter to 12. This case will be again mentioned next Friday.