"NOT GUILTY.”

Taranaki Daily News, 30 November 1922, Page 7

"NOT GUILTY.”

CHARGE OF PERJURY. A HAWERA CASE. - “Not guilty/ was the verdict returned by the jury after a few minutes’ retirement at the conclusion of the evidence offered for and against Alexander .Spence, who stood his trial at the Su-. preme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, on a charge of perjury. His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman, was on the bench, Mr. C. H. Weston (Crown prosecutor) conducted the prosecution, and Mr. P. O’Dea appeared for the accused. The charge against Spence arose out of the hearing of a charge against him at Hawera on August 1 of being an idle and disorderly person with insufficient visible means of support. It was alleged that, during evidence given by him on oath before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., on that occasion, he had sworn that he had received £4O from his father’s estate, which was being administered by the public trustee. It was ascertained, however, that this money had not come from the trustee, and the charge of perjury was laid. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. R. C. Smith. C. S. Pyke, W. J. Hutchings. W. Remington, A. Way, R. H. Sole, C. Seabright, C. E. Collins, H. Sole, L. D. Callaghan, T. Young, and A. L. Hunt. Mr. C. Seabright was appointed foreman. THE MAGISTRATE’S NOTES. Arthur Manwell Mowlem, stipendiary magistrate, gave evidence that the accused had appeared before him on August 1 on a charge of being an idle and disorderly person with insufficient visible means of support. The accused had gone into the witness box, and had been sworn. He had a note that accused swore in examination in chief: “I have a little from mother’s and father’s estate; about £4O within six months.” In cross-examination, accused had said that he. had expected to leave Hawera if the affairs of his parents' estate had been fixed up by the public trustee in whose hands they were. Accused had said that he was not calling the public trustee or his sister as witnesses.

In reply to Mr. O’Dea, Mr. Mowlem said that he would not like to say that the evidence led by the police was in an endeavor to show that accused wa« a bookmaker. His notes or his memory did not recall that. When accused had gone into the box he had produced a roll of notes, quite a sizeable roll, but witness did not remember the notes being counted. There was no evidence that the money had been procured by means of a crime. He had eventually dismissed the. information on account of the decision of Cassidy v. Cassells that, if a man produced money and it was not shown that he had procured it by means of a crime, he could not be convicted of being idle and disorderly with insufficient means of support. Accused had said that he had about £2OO when he left Normanby, but the inference that his evidence had forced on witness, was that the money produced was part of his mother’s and father’s estate. The money might have come from his earnings when he worked with one Poole, but the inference he had drawn had been as stated. Mr. O’Dea continued with regard to a statement that he eaid accused had made with reference to having worked for one Hastie, but Mr. Mowlem said he could not recall it. He would have considered such evidence as material and would have made a note of it. He did not miss any material points from his notes as far as he was aware. He would not call his notes a verbatim report, but they were notes of all the material points. Constable W. H. Andrews, stationed at Hawera, stated that he had laid the information, served the summons, and had sworn the accused when he had entered the witness box. Tn reply to Mr. O’Dftft on that occasion necrosed had stated that he. had had about. £4O from his mother’s and father’s estate, and later, in cross-examination had stated tht the estate was in the hands of the public trustee. Cross-examined, w'tness said that he would not he sure that accused had said that he had worked for Hastie; he thought he bad. As far as witness could say, Spence was a perfectly respectable chap. Re-examined, witness aaid that accused had used the words: “I received about £4O from father's and mother’s estate.” A POSITIVE WITNESS. Sergeant Henry, Hawera, said that accused had said he had obtained the money from the Public Trustee at Hawera. 0 To Mr. O'Dea: He had made inquiries regarding accused’s statement that he had two cows, and found that the cows were where he had stated them to be, but one of them belonged to a Mrs. Andrews. He did not care what the shorthand notes of the case, Mr. O’Dea had, said. He had asked accused where he got the money, and he had said he had got it from the public trustee, Hawera. A solicitor behind him baa remarked that he then had accused bound down to where the money came from. The word “money” was used; he wan quite sure of that. He would not say that the charge of being idle and disorderly had been laid against Spence as a way of dealing with him as a reputed bookmaker. Ernest Barnes, district public trustee at Hawera, said that the estate of accused’s parents was administered by his office. The nett amount of the father’s estate for distribution among his widow and six children was £33 17s 6d, and, when the widow died, her estate was insolvent. The estate had been paid out in two instalments of £1 19s 7d and £1 15s 7d to each of the benficiaries on May 4 and September 11 respectively, accused’s sister' drawing his share on each occasion on his authority. To Mr. O’Dea: He thought all the furniture had been sold at auction. He did not know if it had been divided up among the family. One of the cows which he had presumed as belonging to .the mother’s estate, he had since found belonged to the accused. He did nor. know how the information had got out of the Public Trust Office regarding the estates. He had not given it to the police. Edward Benjamin H. Nicholls, accounts clerk at the public trustee’s office at Hawera. gave'corroborative evidence regarding the’ payments out of the estate. This closed the case for the Crown. THE MAINSTAY OF THE HOME. Mary Elizabeth Hayward, sister of the accused, said that her brother had 'been the main-stay of her parent’ home as far as finsnoa was coacerned. Her

parents had been milking cows and, apart from one old one which had been sold, the others belonged to her brother. There were also a couple of heifers on the place belonging to him. Her brother stayed with her now, but there was no question of board. lie gave her some money any time he apparently thought she wanted it. After her parents had died, her brother made an endeavor to keep the place going, as they were at a loss to know what to do on account of her other brother. Her sister, herself, and brother had eventually taken from the old home everything they valued on account of association or thought they might need, and the remainder was sold. The value of the articles they had kept might have been about £7O or £BO, and her brother’s share of that lot could easily be £4O apart from the stock.

In answer to Mr. Weston, the witness stated that as her brother had bought a Ibt of the furniture in her parents’ home she considered it belonged to him. though he would never have claimed it while they were alive. There had never been any trouble about it and the family had taken the goods as stated. This was the only witness called for the defence) and both counsel then addressed the jury. In summing up, His Honor remarked that cases of perjury did not often come before the Court. The law defined perjury as an assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge, made by a witness in a judicial proceeding as part of his evidence on oath, such assertion being known by such witness to be false and being intended by him to mislead the Court, jury, or person holding the proceedings. If all these elements were present the accused person must be convicted; if any were absent lie could not be convicted. His Honor then proceeded to review portions of the evidence, and stated that it was for the jury to say whether it had been proved to their satisfaction that accused had asserted that he had received something like £4O from his father’s estate. More important than that they had to say whether the statement was wilfully false and intended to mislead the Magistrate. Those were the essential ingredients in the case. It did not .matter whether the Magistrate had .been misled; the point was whether the assertion was intended to mislead. The jury returned after a few minutes' retirement with the verdict as stated above.