THE OLIPHANT HUGHES CASE

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXIII, Issue 12581, 30 September 1908, Page 7

THE OLIPHANT HUGHES CASE

A Re-hearing Applied for

Report of the Parliamantary Petitions Committee

Strongly Supports the Petition

Government Assistance Asked J for.

v rrotn Our Parliamentary Special. — By Telegraph). WELLINGTON, September 29.

The Petitions A to L. Committee recommended that the petition of Oliphant Hughes, of Wanganui, praying for enquiries to be made with a view to a rehearing of a charge of perjury of which he was convicted, be referred to the Government for favourable consideration. Mr Wilford strongly supported the petitioner, outlining the case, and saying that the Select Committee had without hesitation decided that the petitioner had not been the writer of the signature on the deed of transfer. He urged that the result of the recommendation of the committee would be to give the petitioner an opportunity of clearing himself of the charge of perjury of which he had been convicted. Mr Hogan desired to speak as the representative of the district in which Hughes lived. He agreed with what Mr Wilford had said. It was peculiar, in that Hughes had brought on the case in which he was convicted. He had brought the case in good faith, and as the- result of his evidence the police had taken action against him for perjury. There was a strong feeling in Wanganui among a large section in favour of the man, and the remaining section would not say anything one way or the other. Mr Hogan hoped that something would be done to help Hughes to establish his innocence or to enable him to attempt to do so. Mr Hogan had known Mr Hughes for years, and so had Wanganui, and he had always been held in respect. No one would have suggested that he could be guilty of the crime. He hoped something would be done as suggested.

Mr Remington, a member of the committee, said the case had been fairly put by Mr Wilford. He described the process that had been gone through to compare the signature of the petitioner with that on the transfer and they had come to the conclusion -that the latter was .not Hughes's. He had been an unfortunate man in having been convicted on such evidence. The man had no means of his own, and Mr Remington hoped the Government would provide him with the opportunity of proving his innocence.

The Minister for Justice said it was admitted by the highest authorities that handwriting was not the best method of proving anything. He only wished to point this out. He had no feeling one way or the other, but he would do his best on behalf of the Department to do as directed.

Mr Davey said no Sixth Standard child would hesitate to say the two handwritings were dissimilar. There seemed to be litle doubt that the man had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.