HUSBAND FOR TRIAL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19624, 7 May 1938, Page 16

HUSBAND FOR TRIAL

DIVORCE CASE SEQUEL ALLEGED FALSE EVIDENCE (X’er Pruss Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, this day. Charges of having counselled or procured two men to commit perjury, were preferred against Anthoney George Bouterey, a labourer, aged 38, in the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr. E. C. Levvey, S.M., yesterday.

After the evidence of 12 witnesses had been given, Bouterey pleaded not guilty In respect of each charge and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial.

The prosecution was conducted by Chief-Detective W. 11. Dunlop. The accused was not represented by counsel, and asked only one question of a witness. He had nothing to say after the hearing of the evidence. His application for bail was refused. Two witnesses were warned by the magistrate that their evidence might render them liable to prosecution, and they were told that they were not required to answer questions which might incriminate themselves. In both cases they elected to answer all the questions put by the prosecution. Bouterey was charged with counselling or procuring Cyril Wilfred Stanley and Douglas William Dyer to commit perjury, having procured them falsely to appear at a hearing before the Supreme Court, at Christchurch, on August 27, 1937, of a petition for divorce from Coral Pearl Bouterey, his wife, and stale that on May 15, 22 and 30, 1935, they were at Napier aboard a launch there, and saw Coral Pearl Bouterey commit adultery with Peter Alexander Munro, whereas, in truth, neither Cyril Wilfred Stanley nor Douglas William Dyer was at Napier on those days, nor did they see Coral Pearl Bouterey commit adultery with Munro or anybody else. Cyril Wilfred Stanley, a labourer, aged 20, Thorpe, Nelson, said he met the accused in Dunedin in 1934, and had worked for him in Christchurch. Early in 1937 when the accused and his wife were not living together, the accused told the witness that he wanted to get a divorce from his wife, and detailed evidence about alleged parlies at Napier, which he wanted the witness to give in the divorce ease. The witness outlined the evidence lie gave in the divorce case which, he said, was entirely false and was given to mislead the court. He