DISMISSED

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 71, 27 July 1929, Page 5

DISMISSED

CASE AGAINST LAWYER

MR C. S. THOMAS CHARGED.

ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO SWAY EVIDENCE.

CHMSTCHimCH, Last Night,

"Tliat on or about April 28, 1929, at Christrhurcb, he did wilfully attempt to pervert the course, of justice,, in an information against John Boyd Clark, charged with negligently driving a motor-car and causing the death of Maureen Doris Mitchell”, was a charge, laid- against Charles Stewart Thomas, solicitor, before Mr E. C. Levy, S.M. There was a similar charge against Frank Brear Clark. Mr A. C. Hanlon and Air M. J. Gresson represented the accused.

In opening the case against Thomas the chief-detective isaif/ Thomas appeared for Clark. The hearing in the lower court was commenced on April 24 and adjourned' to- enable two, witnesses to he brought from the. West Coast. These two witnesses loft the West Coast on Anril 27 to give evidence in Christchurch. On the evening before thev loft Grevmonth "They were am roach ed hv n. man. On arrival in Christchurch they were met by Thom ft s at the WTnfl“o r Horil, where' they were, staving. They were taken' out to Thomas’ motor-car and were together for 20 minutes, to police.’ It was alleged that in the course of the interview Thomas tried to- influence their evidence in favour of accused. They told Thomas that they had. made statements to the police, and told him what those statements were. At the hearing in. the lower court they gave evidence 1 , andl the evidence of one of them did not quite come up to the statement to. the pol-

JC6. After tlie hearing in the lower court the witnesses, McPhee and Gordon, stayed a, week for the Supreme Court sitting, and during that week they were communicated with by Thomas and on the Saturday before the Suprem e Court sitting McPhee went to. Thomas’ office and) was there for half a.n hour. McPhee would tell the court that during the course of that interview Thomas endeavoured to influence his evidence, in several ways.

McPhee and Condon gave evidence on •! lines of the police statement. "Detective-Sergeant Young save evidence of an interview with Thomas after the hearing: of the case against Clark, Timm as admitted having interviewed McPhee and Gordon, hut denied having asked +hem to make thiu rr s easier fur fflark; nor did he promise to send Clark seur. to see them.. Me denied that hejmd ever told M„T>bee it would be well worth! his while to* modify his evidence. AH nOMF. Mr Hanlqn, addressing the.,-court, declared an injustice had been dona Thomas in launching the prosecution against him on the evidence of one more or less drunken man, and that man a cunning liar. He pointed to- the details in which McPhee 1 s evidence was contradicted hy Detelctive-Ser-geant Young-. He asked the magistrate to dismiss the case out of hand. The chief-detective addressed the court-, He said the cross-examinat-ion had net attacked the main points ,of the evidence for the Crown, and this evidence remained unshaken. The magistrate said he Was not prepared to send the. accused for trial. He was not satisfied with the evidence of McPhee, and Gordon’s evidence was of no value at all. The information whs dismissed.

A similar charge? was made against Frank Brear Clark, father of the young man who drove the car. Mr Hanlon . protested against the case proceeding at all in view of the magistrate’s declaration that he did not helieve McPhee. The case, proceeded, however.

After hearing- evidence the information was dismissed.