Constable Charged With Perjury

Southland Times, Issue 19553, 6 May 1905, Page 2

Constable Charged With Perjury

PECULIAR EVERY WAY,

(Per United Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, May 5

The charge against John Howley, a police constable, of having committed perjury in connection with two charges against one James Kennedy-of being an idle and disorderly person, in that he co’asorted witli reputed thieves and prostitutes and with being the keeper of a brothel, was concluded in the Supreme Court-to-day. The alleged perjury lay in that Howley had sworn to seeing Kennedy in the company of bad characters on 26th and 27th December (amongst other dates), and made an entry in his note-book at the time. The evidence for the Crown went to show that Kennedy was at Palmerston on the dates upon which he was alleged to have been in Wellington. For the defence, evidence was given -by Thos. Fitzsimmons, a secondhand-dealer, and his wife, who swore that they saw Kennedy in their shop on 27th December. It was about two months after Kennedy was first prosecuted that the witnesses remwnbered having seen him on tho date given. They first mentioned tho incident to a detective who was in Howley’s company.

Summing-up, the Chief Justice said he thought it had cast a bad llavour over the case to call Fitzsimmons and his wife to give evidence lor the accused. It was for the jury to Isay whether the evidence of those two should outweigh the evidence oi six or seven witnesses for ths prosecution. At the same time, whether the jury thought that Fitzsimmons and his wife were swearing falsely or not, they must not bring in a verdict of “ guilty ’-’ unless they were satisfied that the, accused had deliberately and designedly sworn falsely against Kennedy. After half-an-hour’s-deliberation the jury returned with a verdict of “not guilty’ on the ground of mistaken identity. His Honour : Well, gentlemen’, I think it is a very proper verdict. I am not. going to direct a prosecution against Fitzsimmons and his wife, but I think it is the duty of the police to make enquiries into their cane. This should be a lesson to the police to be very careful in the evidence they bring before a court.