NOT GUILTY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 900, 20 August 1910, Page 6

NOT GUILTY.

THE LONG NODINE TRIAL ENDS. A TANGLED BATTLE, CASE NOT FINISHED TILL 9 P.M. When Charles Nodine was placed in the dock yesterday morning, to stand' his trial on a charge of perjury, the body of llio coiirt was filled with spectators, in plain evidence of popular interest. This, however, suffered a rapid diminution as the morning wore on. By half-past eleven many of the spectators were yawning in a tired way, and at midday fully half of them had departed, while those who remained betrayed only a languid interest in the proceedings. A brief statement of the case for the Grown was followed by an extensive reading of old evidence, and a long-drawn examination of witnesses by accused.

Mr. Justice Cooper was on tho bench. Of the jury empanelled,' ■Uγ. Joseph Martin was appointed foreman. Mr. H. H. Ostler prosecuted for the Crown. Accused still steadily declines to be represented by counsel. He was permitted a seat at table in order that he might have better ■' command over his papers, which were voluminous. Tho indictment charged him with perjury in a civil action, • in which Kobert Hannah, of Wellington, .waa plaintiff, and'ho (Nodine)'was defendant. During, the course of that, case he stated on oath that he did not sign a certain' agreement, and further, that tho. signature attached thereto was not his. .. ' ' ' ■ •' • ,' . ' Battle Opens. ■ George Henry Yealc, erier at the Supremo Court, gave 'evidence as to administering the,oath in,the civil action referred, to. Important evidence for the proEecution was given ■ by Herbert Edward Le Grove, Supreme Court official stenographer, who produced shorthand notes of a dialogue between his Honour tho. Chief Justice, Sir Kobert Stout, and the accused, in which the latter explicitly . and repeatedly denied having signed the (Exhibit A) named in the indictment. Daniel George . Arthur Cooper,. Registrar of the Supreme Court, formally identified the agreement between Hannah and Nodino, and gave evidence as to tho. latter repudiating the signature thereon before his Honour the Chief Justice. , : . "' '

AVitnpss was c-xamined at some lengtli by ar.cus.ed as to : what occurred at u sitting in Chr.mbers on ihc morning before the' civil action.. Accused:. Was not the case a motion that my' defence be struck out altogether? "• His Honour: That has plainly nothing to.- do with tho. question whether you signed.this agreement. I will give you the fullest latitude, but we are not now trying'the case of Hannah and Nodine. Ink Erndicator. Witness war, then subjected to a lonii examination by the accused, proceeding from the question, "Do. you know all about papers and documents and affidavits and that sort of thing." "You. know the'definition of perjury of course," said accused.—"Yes." ' • And forgery, do you know all about that?—" Yes.'" Do, you know that it. is possible .to obliterate the whole of a document, and put in new matter on top of tho. signature?—"No, I did not know that. I'ha ye never seen-the experiment tried, nor tried it myself."' Have you seen anything like this before? said Mr. Nodine (handing up a packet marked "ink eradicator"). — "No." ,-. .-.,,-. . ' Accused: Obliteration'is one of the definitions of forgery.,' Are you a barrister? " ' '''..' His Honour: , I don't think you are entitled to examine the registr.tr as to his legal knowledge. If you want me to define it I will define it.for you later oh. . , . . Accused: Ob, no; I don't want your Honour to define it at all. . I only want to know if it is common knowledge. Accused next produced a number, of photographs of the agreement,for some , purpose of comparison, but" his Honour ruled that these could not bo admitted. Obliteration. "My point is this," said accused soon afterwards, that it does not matter at all whether that document'is a forgery or not, but tho state of mj« mind, when I was in the box, is everything. I said that was not my handwriting.. 1 did not know then that writing had been obliterated.' , , His Honour: Mr. Nodine, you must exorcise a littlo comnwnsense. No one can say that the writing on this paper lias, been obliterated and. other matter written since.' It. is impossible. Accused (again turning 'to witness): Do you see that; obliteration ~in the i centre of it? ■ .' . , ■■ ~. . His Honour: This has nothing to.do with this. case. 'If you want-to "call expert evidence to prove that the docu- 1 ment has been, tampered with you will be permitted to do so. • ■' .'■ . •Accused: Well, your Honour, you don't want experts. Evoryqne could do it. This stuff (the eradicator) is being used every day.. " ■ ■ • Succeeding questions by.Mr. Nodmo moved his Honour to remark: "I think it is a great pity that you did not submit your defence to counsel." ' ;

Undismayed prisoner continued, his aim apparently being to suggest that tho signatures might have been written at different, times..—'.'Will you write your name?" ho aslied, offering witness (Mr. Cooper) a-pen. His Honour intervened remarking: If you want to say that'this document has been tampered with, you must call evidence, to prove it. '■ .Accused: 1 thought they had,tampered with the document. I stated so in tho box. His Honour: But you have sworn that this is not your signature. You affirmed most emphatically that you did not write these two words "Charles Nodine." ■ ' Accused: This is the position: I said "that is not the paper I signed." I was confronted with the paper,' and I knew absolutely that jt was not the paper 1 signed. But it was there, all the same, and I knew that tho explanation would come. ■ Speaking of the civil action in tho Supremo Court and succeeding proceedings, accused said: "I applied for an adjournment for a few days, but his Honour ordered it to go on on the same day, at 2 o'clock. Mr. Cooper, do you think' that going on like this immediately——" ' His Honour: I cannot permit you to ■ ask tho Registrar of this Court to question the conduct of tho Chief Justice. , Accused: No/ I don't want to ask -that at all;-would it Ire likely to irritate mo? Witness: 1 cannot say. At twenty-live minutes after the usual adjournment hour Mr. Nodine allowed tho witness lo : leave the box. Mr. Wylie in the Box. Andrew Wylie, barrister and solicitor, deposed to drawing up tho deed and seeing it signed by Messrs. It. Hannah and Nodine. Save for tho stamp, a number, "240," and marginal notes by Court, officers, no alteration had been made in the document. . . To a question by accused,, witness replied that the number "246" was l in his brother's handwriting. It indicated the street number of the building mentioned in tho tease.

His Honour: Quite immutoiial. Accused: Oh, but, your Honour, it is very important 1 want to show you in a moment. To witness: You don't know that 1 have liiiido an objection that tht> document is unspceific because the premises were not properly located? —"No, 1 did not know anything about that." Accused (after further dialogue with his Honour): When we signed the agreement, did we use the saiuo pen and the same ink —"1 cannot say. 1 can swear that you both signed, and in my office. Tltaro were several kinds of ink in my inkstand." Accused: Do you know that in my original evidence 1 said the names wore in the left-hand corner! , —"No." Accused: Do you know that when a document is drawn .in lines, words can be added. 1 said the words "payable weekly" had been added to this. ~ ■ His Honour: If you are going to allege that before a jury you will have to prove it. You arc charging this witness with forgery. : < ■ ■ Accused: Oh, no, your Honour! 1 am not charging him at all. I am saying that it was in my mind that it was not there" when 1 signed it..-' I am not going to attempt, to prove it. That'would be a very ■ difficult operation. Mr. Wylie: I quite agree-' with you there, Mr. Nodine.. Duel with Mr. Hannah. Robert Hannah, boot manufacturer, Wellington, said instructions regarding the agreement for tho lease were given in Mr. Wylie's office. Nodine and himself were present. Instruction's were dictated to Mr. Wylie, who took them down, and read ovor the agreement.. ' Witness signed, and their Nodine and Wylie. Witness saw Nodine sign. Nodino had the agreement in his hand. ' The agreement was handed to wit ness, who said there had been no alteration in'it-since he signed it. , Accused: You're a great believer,in land on Lambton Quay? You like it, do you not?—" Well, yes." . (Laughter.) . , ; .■'.■'■ ■ What value do you put on that property?—,!! don't know that I'm-bound to answer, that.here." ' His Honour:. The question before the Court, Mr. Nodine,.as I have sakl more than once, is: Did ■ you '■ or did you not sign that agreement? i Witness, in 'further reply, to accused, said he could since -have let the shop to other tenants at the same, rent, as he had agreed to let it to Nodine.'. ' Accused: And if I had let the shop to someone else, and used the rooms hoovu fo> my ,own business,. 1 should havo had a good thing?—So you told -me. You said you were cabling to your son in London to send out the best cutters and utters and an up-to-date, stock, and you' were going to elosc up everybody else on the Quay. Accused (continuing): Have you ever beforq signed your name in tho left hand corner of a document?—"l don't know. .1 suppose it depends on what space is left." , -You didn't toll- Skcrrett and Wylie .to put in a clause that Ijwas. not to deal in,boots and shoes?—" No." But , you expected to see it in the lease,?—"l should have expected'it?, , if I had thought of it. I generally have it in my leases." After further, .questioning on this point, Mr. Ostler stated that the clause forbidding to sell boots was taken out after Nodine objected to it. . : Accused then asked several - question* relating to his business.being turn ".r into a company, and as to. the. witness's knowledge of the fact or otherwise. ' ■.■ " .' ■ ," . ; . Witness 'replied that, he had no knowledge about the company. "Don't Go to Sleep!" Apparently failing to hear • one or ,two. of the witness's replies, Mr. Nodine exclaimed: "Don't go-to sleep!" His- Honour: You will have to conduct yourself properly. ' You are not entitled to insult the witness. I have given you a- great deal more latitude than' you are entitled to. •: I don't want to draw too much . restriction round you, but I can't allow the time of the jury and tho time''of the country, to be wasted with a lot of irrelevant questions. . . ■•'■,■.''. Accused: Yes, your Honour, but —— His Honour: Go on with your crossexamination. .- ■ : Accused explained that he was slightly hard of hearing/; , ' , His'.Honour then directed that a v 'chair should bo placed for accused near the witness box. ■ • . ■ . Accused, however, elected to., remain whore he was, and tho cross-examina-tion proceeded without further difficulties of hearing. ' ■ Asked if. ho wished to. give evidence on his own behalf .accused replied in the- negative. ' . , Mr. Ostler waived his privilege of addressing 'the jury. ' ■ ..' Mr. Notline's Address to J u^. . In an address to the jury _ that; occupied just over an hour in delivery,, accused stressed , at the outset his oftrepeated declaration of, honest ' belief that the disputed agreement was a forgery. He did not ask tlio. jury to believe this, but only that it wasMiis holiest belief when he delivered his testimony in the box.. Further,, his' Honour, tho Chief Justice, had certainly irritated him, first by ordering that the case should proceed when he desired an' adjournment, and later by taking the cross-ox'ainination of accused into his own hands. The. indictment wa-s unfair, in that.it was based on two or three words selected from a mass of evidence. A perjurer would have concocted everything he wanted to say. Prisoner.contended that; his demeanour throughout had been, that,of ah honest man. He had not made up a concocted tale. Tho thing camo to him, springing out of his mind, as true. If he'had to go into the witness l>ox to-morrow ho would say just the same. Acquitted. ' The jury retired at 8.10 p.m., and, after an absence of forty-five minutes, returned with a verdict of acquittal.. Subjoined are the questions set before' the jury by his Honour, and the replies made thereto :— (1) Did the prisoner, on June 1, 1910, sweaV-in an action, Hannah v. Nodine, in the Supreme Court, Wellington, that ho did not'sign a certain agreement called "Instructions for lease," and that the signature to'tho said agreement, purporting to be the signature of the prisoner, was not his signature?— "Yes." . "•■ : .(2) Is the said agreement a genuine, document?—" Yes." • ■ . (3) Was it in fact signed by the prisoner?—" Yes." - . . If those questions arc answered "yes," then:— (4) Did the prisoner, m swearing as aforesaid, do so in tho mistaken belief that he had not signed the said agreement? —"Yes." (5) Was such belief without foundation? —"Yes." (6) Did the prisoner, at the time ho gave his evidence, know that the assertions that the said signature was not in fact, his signature, and .that he did not sifii the saic{ agreement,■ were false?— ' "No." .- ~ , .; (7) Did he intend to mislead the Court ?--"No." His Honour discharged tho prisoner, and adjourned the Court until 10 a.m. to-day.