YOUNG MAN DENIES PERJURY CHARGE

Press, Volume C, Issue 29505, 5 May 1961, Page 17

YOUNG MAN DENIES PERJURY CHARGE

George Albert Stewart, aged 24, a carpenter, before Mr Justice Macarthur and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday, pleaded not guilty to a charge of committing perjury. Stewart was charged that on November 18. 1960. when giving evidence in the Magistrate’s Court at Christchurch before Mr A. P. Blair, S.M., in a case in which he was charged with operating a motor-cycle without a warrant of fitness on September 17, 1960. he did assert that he did not ride a motor-cycle on that day but was only pushing it, whereas in truth and in fact he rode it and knew his assertion to be false and intended by him to mislead the Court. Evidence for the Crown had been completed and the accused, after giving evidence on his own behalf, was being cross-examined when the Court adjourned until today. Mr R. W. Edgley conducted the case for the Crown. Mr A. F. Wilding appeared for Stewart. Opening the case for the Crown, Mr Edgley said the evidence would be that about September, 1958, the accused bought a motor-cycle with a warrant of fitness about to expire. The seller would give evidence that the accused had signed an agreement not to use the motorcycle, apart from getting it home, until he obtained a new warrant. This agreement would be produced. Constable B. W. Thomas would say that two years later, on Saturday, September 17, 1960. he was on duty in High street when he saw the accused on a noisy motor-cycle. Sergeant G. A. Agnew would give corroborative evidence. He would say that when picked up by Constable W. McCallum in a patrol car he observed that the accused had halted the motor-cycle and was getting astride it. Denied Charge Constable McCallum would say that he questioned the accused and found that he had not had a warrant of fitness for the motor-cycle for two years. On November 18, 1960, the accused appeared in the Magistrate’s Court and pleaded not guilty to a charge of operating a motorcycle without a warrant of fitness. He conducted his own defence. Sergeant Agnew and Constable Thomas did not appear as witnesses for the police. Constable Thomas gave evidence that he only saw the accused astride the motor-cycle. "The accused then gave evidence on his own behalf and said on oath that he had not ridden the motor-cycle but only pushed it from his home to a mechanic’s home and back again,” Mr Edgley said. The Magistrate had dismissed the charge against the acscused. Sergeant E. S. Tuck, who prosecuted in the Lower Court, and Sergeant T. A. A. Marson present in that Court, would give evidence that the accused had said on oath he did not ride the motor-cycle. When interviewed later by Detective-Sergeant L. D Harrowfield, the accused had admitted swearing in the Lower Court that he had not ridden the motor-cycle, Mr Edgley said.

"The Crown’s case is that the accused went into the witness box and gave false evidence, knowing it to be false, to secure his own acquittal, and, in fact, did so.” Mr Edgley concluded. Evidence along the lines of counsel's opening . was given by witnesses for the Crown. Interview Sergeant Harrowfield said that when interviewed by him the accused had agreed that he had said in evidence in the Lower Court that he had not ridden the motorcycle that day; that it was not in running repair and would not go; that he was pushing it to a friend’s place to have it repaired; that the friend lived in Cranford street, and that he was sitting astride the machine when questioned by Constable McCallum. The witness said the accused told him he was riding a motor-cycle. registered number 85-095. when questioned by the constable. Interviewed later, tfw accused said this motor-cyefe had a number plate, 49-071, on the front and a number plate 35-095 on the back as he had used another mudguard in repairs to the machine. The accused had said that if a sergeant and a constable saw him riding a motorcycle that day in High street they would be telling lies, the witness said. Told he would probably be charged with perjury, the accused had replied he would see his solicitor. Cross-examined. Harrowfield said he had not qjtecked on the accused's explanation for the two different number plates. He had not asked the accused to start the motor-cycle. Defence Evidence In evidence on his own behalf, the accused produced a motor registration certificate that stated he was the owner of a motor-cycle with registered number 85-095. He said the motorcycle would not go on September 17, 1960. He pushed it to his friend's place. "I did not ride the motorcycle in High street or Manchester street that day. I did not ride it at all except in the back yard. The registration plate, number 85-095, was on the rear. A made-up plate, with number 49-071. was on the front because I had been doing repairs on it,” the accused said. Cross-examined by Mr Edgley, the accused denied he had said in the Lower Court that his friend’s place was in Cranford street. He had said it was a street off Cranford street. The accused denied he had ridden the motor-cycle through the Manchester Street-High street intersection He was on his way to his friend's place. He had pushed the machine all the way It was three miles, and took him about two hours.