CHARGES OF, PERJURY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 316, 1 October 1908, Page 7

CHARGES OF, PERJURY.

SEARL v. DE LAVAL. THE INFORMATION DISMISSED. Two charges of perjury which have loomed large in the public eye of late were 'finally disposed of by Mr. W. 6. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when his Worship delivered his reserved decision in the case, Edward John Searl, restaurantkeeper, v. Leo De Laval, cook, charge arising out of a civil action in which De Laval sued Searl for wages. In dismissing tho information against Do Laval, his Worship remarked that if tho evidenco for the prosecution hud stood unchallenged the Court would have had no option but to commit defendant, for trial, but defendant had the liberty to call evidence, and ho liad done 'so. . Tlio Court had discretionary power, and if it considered, after hearing defendant's statement, there was a doubt as to whether a jury would convict, or if it was certain that a jury would not convict, tho Court could dismiss the information. His Worship said ho had no hesitation in dismissing the information against Do Laval, as ho considered no jury would convict on tlie evidenoe submitted. The charge of perjury arising out of the t't' 1 ac ' ; ' on se ' down against Constable Havelook was also dismissed, no evidence being tendered. ■ who appeared for Haveloclc, asked for costs, and went on to deal with cortam aspects of tho charge. r - ®" nu > for Searl, stated that the first reason tho case was not being gone on with was that prosecutor had not tho means to carry on the case, and the second reason was that tho information had been laid on tho magistrate's notes of. tho civil case. On these, counsel urged, there was sufficient to 150 on, but evidence given at the ease against De Laval had altered the position." His Worship remarked that as far as tho charge against Constable Havolock was concorned that information must bo dismissed, as no evidence was offorcd. In a private prosecution such as tho present, said his Worship, it was essential that tho informant should see that his evidence was of such a strength that a prima facie caso must be made out. It seemed to tho Court that informant did not talco the precaution ho should have taken in such a charge as the present one. Mr. Toogood, who appeared for De Lav.il, also asked for costs against prosecutor. His Worship had some doubt as to whether he could award costs in such eases, and intimated that the question of costs would bs reserved.