CHARGE OF PERJURY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 11880, 16 January 1914, Page 5

CHARGE OF PERJURY.

» OUTCOME OF LIQUOR CASE

PETHERICK BEFORE THE COURT

At the S.M. Court this morning, before Messrs Eli Smith and G. Heron, J.'sP., Arthur William Pethcrick was charged that on December 12th, 1913, at Masterton in a judicial proceeding at a sitting of the- Magistrate's Court held at Masterton charging the defendant with keeping liquor for sale, ho did commit perjury by swearing: "I took it to them in Holland's motor car from the Court, delivered to Mrs Taplin first, then to Dagg's. Three or four wero present when I left it at Dagg's —some young ladies and an\other man. Dagg was present when I left it, and his man. lX.gg did not come home that night. He came home tho night before, and I took him home. " Sergeant Miller conducted the prosecution, and Mr P. L. Hollnige appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty.

Leonard G. Reid, Stipendiary Mag- • is eP*s saicl that he P resicled over the Court when the charge against accused of having kept liquor for sale within the no-license district of Masterton was heard. Accused gave evidence On his , own behalf on that occasion. Certain . orders for liquor were produced by accused, and the material defence of accused was that he .had obtained the liquor for the persons referred to in the orders. The liquor had been m Court, and accused said that he had taken the liquor in Holland's car to tho persons who had ordered it. In reference to Dagg's order, accused said he took the liquor to Dagg's house. Accused stated he saw some young girls or ladies at the house, the liquor was taken into tho yard, and witness understood accused to say that Dagg and Dagg's man were there. In reply to a question asked at the time in cross--examination by Sergeant Miller, acl cused said that Dagg and his man were at home on the date of the supposed dolivery. In consequence of the statements made by accused witness dismissed the case. _ Cross-examined by Mr Hollings: Witness desired to satisfy himself that the lioflfc, was delivered in pursuance of tflßfolers. The evidence given by accused in this connection was not contradicted. This was the essential question in the matter. Witness directed that the liquor should be returned to accused after the previous case, which had also been dismissed. Witness believed accused's evidence. There wasnot attempt by accused to conceal anything during the hearing of the case. Accrued answered questions in a J straightforward manner. He did not take "any notes because he considered the only question was as to whether the liquor was delivered or not. Servant Miller stated in the course" of evidence that on November 14th last he returned to accused a quantity of liquor which had been seized by the police. Accused put the liquor in Holland's motor car and drove away. On December 12th, in a charge against accused for having kept liquor for sale, accused made the statement contained in the charge, -which had reference to the disposal of tho liquor handed to accused by witness. Witness asked accused particularly abo«j*Hvering the liquor at Dagg's, and replies down. Witness said to accused: "Dagg was away at the time, and only came home that night. Accused replied: "Dagg did not come home that night; he came home the night before, and I took him "home. Dagg was present when I left, and also his man." Accused stated •that he left the liquor in a buggy in the shed-. -On Saturday last, in company with Constable Penson, witness saw accused in the Prince of Wales stables, and said: "I've got a.warrant •to arrest you for committing perjury on December 12th. " Accused replied: -"I can assure you, Sergeant, that no perjury was committed." When witness read the words in the charge relating to there having been three or four persons present at Dagg's, accused stated that he had not said that, but that there were a couple of girls in the garden. Cross-examined, witness said positively that accused had stated that Dagg and his man waa present. He was not confusing the answer given by accused relative to who was at the house. Dagg's man had informed him that Holland's car was never at Dagg's. Ho UkA not know whether it was true or that the liquor had been delivered in pursuance of the orders. Witness did not cross-examine accused as to which Mrs Taplin was meant. Accused did not say that it was a Mrs A. Taplin. witness had since learned that there were two Mrs Taplins. Constable Dunphy gave evidence as to accused making the statement contained in the charge. Accused stated that Dagg had come home the night before the liquor was delivered. Accused had also stated that ho delivered tho liquor in a wood shed. Accused said positively that Dagg was present, and also Dagg's man. - Cross-examined: Witness was positive that accused had said that Dagg was present. After the case was over witness made notes concerning statements made by accused concerning tho disposal of liquor. Sergeant Miller had not seen these notes, neither had witness seen Sergeant Miller's notes. The younger Mrs Taplin said that her mother may have been in on November 14th and have taken charge of the liquor. He had not taken any steps to *Mjtertain whether the liquor had been JTOivercd at Boyle's and Taplin's. The essential question was whether the liquor had been delivered in pursuance of the orders. Re-examined by Sergeant Miller: When he heard a statement made by accused he had reason to take the notes because ho knew . the statement was not correct, as on the night of November 14th he saw Mr and Mrs K. Dagg get off the train at the railway station. They were met by their daughters on the platform. Ten minutes later he saw them being driven to their home in a buggy and pair. On arrival at the police station witness drew Sergeant Miller's attention to the fact that Mr and Mrs Dagg had that night reached Masterton. Witness knew that accused's statement that he had driven Dagg home the night before was incorrect, and this was why he had taken the notes. Airs Taplin junr. had stated to witness that she had not seen the . liquor in the house. Vfm Constable Penson gave corroborative as to the statements made by accused in reference to the delivery of the liquor at Dagg's. Cross-examined: Witness mado notes concernnig the ease abou , ; two minutes after its conclusion, having been inetructed to do co by Sergeant Miller. Hβ was not speaking from memory, but from the notes he had taken. Mrs Ethel Louise Taplin stated that she was not at home on November 14th. No liquor had been delivered to her on that date, as she was absent from home from November sth to November 19th.

Mr Hollings: Wo haven't said so . Witness, continuing, said that on her return ehe saw some beer at tho house. - Cross-examined by Mr Hollings: When witness was away her mother, Mrs Taplin, was in charge of the house, so that it was quite probable that the liquor was delivered to her. She had informed Constable Dunphy last Saturday that her mother's name was Taplin, and that she was at the house on November 14th. She had not told Constablo Dunphy on his first visit that her mother's name was Taplin because she had not been asked tho question. . Frank Clancy said that he was a farm hand at R. J. Dagg's, and said that his employer was away in November, but could not remember the date. Ho did not see accused call at Dagg's with liquor on the day of tho case, though he might have done. Ho had never seen accused leave liquor at Dagg's on any occasion. Mr Dagg returned home on a Friday night, though he could not remember tho da to. Cross-examined: If accused saw witness breaking in a horse with the assistance of another man, accused must have been at Dagg'e house, as witness was breaking in a horse on that day. There wero also several ladies about the house. R. J. Dagg said that he was a farmer at the Upper Plain. He was away from home in November. He roturned on November 14th. He came by tho Patoena from tho South, and arrived in Masterton on the evening of Friday, November 14th. He was met at the station by his daughters and driven home. On the night of November 13th he was on his way from Lyttelton. Accused could not have takeu him home on that night, as he was on the water. He got delivery of the case of whiskey subject to tho order on the following week after he returned from the South. Accused told him a few days after his return to Masterton to go to Eagle's for the liquor, and witness did so. Cross-examined: Witness could not say whether accused had delivered the liquor to his place in the first instance. It was quite possible for the liquor to have been taken to his place and then to Eagle's, where he got delivery of it. Thomas Holland, motor car proprietor, eaid that on November 14th he took a lot of liquor from the Court house to Eagle's place. He did not take it further that day. He did not tall at Taplin's, Dagg's, or Boyle's that day. He had never had his motor car at Dagg's at any time. In the following week ho delivered some of the liquor at Taplin's and Boyle's obtaining the liquor from Eagle's. Eagle and accused were with him when he delivered the liquor. He did not call at Dagg's. Cross-examined: Ho had only done the one trip for Petherick. He did not take the liquor to Taplin's or Boyle's on the day of the Court case. He was positive of this. It was in the following week that he delivered the liquor at these two places, though it might hnvo been the following day. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution. (Left sitting.)