LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1689, 4 March 1913, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

LOWER COURT. FACING PERJURY CHARGE. LICENSEE'S OATH.. THE NATIONAL HOTEL CASE. MARRIED OR NOT? Tho Magistraio's Court sat yesterday afternoon for the purpose of hearing a charge of perjury preferred against Samuel Francis. Aitkcu, licensee of tho National Hotel. Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.JI., was on tlio bench. iTho charge read:— On May 2, 1912, in a certain judicial proceeding held before Dr. A. M'Arthuiy S.M., under tho Licensing Act, 1908, Samuel Francis Aitken did commit perjury by swearing, "I am a married man living with my wife," whereas in truth and ill fact the said S. F. Aitken was not married. Chief-Detective Broberg represented the police, and Mr. W. Perry appeared; for tho defendant Aitken. Dr. M'Arthur as a Witness Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., was put in the box. He stated in evidence that he was chairman of the AVellington Licensing Committee. Questioned by tho Chief Detective concerning a ccrtain meeting of the Licensing Committee, Dr. M'Arthur replied that defendant Aitken had his evidence taken on oath, and the question as to whether lie was a married man had been distinctly put to him. Aitken's reply had been that he was. This question—whether defendant was married or not—was material to tho decision of the Licensing Bench, a 9 he (Dr. Jl'Arthur) would not have granted the license (unless under special circumstances) if it had .appeared from tho proceedings that Aitken was unmarried. The spccial circumstances were that ho would have been required to show the committee that he had some femalo relative who would be prepared to assist in carrying out certain work required in tho .hotel. The essential question—as to whether'Aitken was married or not—had been pressed. The Chief Detective: In what way would defendant have benefited by stAting he was a married ijian? Dr; M'Arthur: Ho would have benefited by getting.the license. He would not otherwise have got it. Solicitor who could not Recollect. "John J. M'Grath, solicitor, stated that lie had appeared for Aitken when the latter had made application for a license for the National. Hotel. Witness asserted that he "could not recollect whether Aitken had made any reference as to whether he was married or not." Clerk of the Court Sworn. Arthur H. Holmes, clerk of tho Magistrate's' Court, Wellington, and also clerk of the" Licensing Committee, stated that Aitken had been called to attend a meeting of the committoe on May 2, 1912, to answer an objection to the granting of the license by the police. Aitken had been sworn in the usual form, and had then been examined by Mr. M'Grath. Tho inquiry had involved two particular points. First, whether Aitken was a married man living with his wife; and, secondly, as to his financial position. Aitken had sworn that lie was a married man living with his wife, and that lie had ono child. Ho had also sworn that ho was putting .£SOO of his own money into tho business. A certificate of fitness was thereupon issued to him. * Mr. Perry: There are two chief points at issue. One is as to whether defendant was a "married man? Witness: Yes, that was one of them. ■ Also his financial position. Mr. Perry: Was not there a point as to whether his mother arid father were to take part in the business? Witness: Yes. That camo up later. . Witness, continuing, added that (as far as ho knew) Aitken was a married man. ' Evidenco by Inspector Ellison. Police-Inspector Ellison stated that, on February IU, 1»13, he had called at the National Hotel. On tho occasion of the visit he had notified Aitken that it was rumoured 'that he was not a married man. Aitken replied: "That's wrong, I am married." ito (tho inspector) tlien asked Aitken what his wife's nauio was prior to her marriage, and Aiticen replied "May Paterson." Witness then asked Aitken how long he' had been' married before he wont into tho Grosvcnor Hotel. Aitken replied that he had been married just before that time. That was about four years ago. Witness then remarked: "Surely a man remembers the day on which ho was married?" Aitken then replied that it was in the month of August. -Witness asked:.."Where were you married? ,Was it at the liegistry Ottce at Wellington?" Defendant replied: "Yes, at the Itegistry Office." In the course of other evidence, Inspector Ellison went oil to say that he believed that at the time -that defendant made application in respect to the license of tho National Hotel he. was a married manjior otherwise ho (tho inspector) would have made objection. In every case ho endeavoured to ascertain whether tho applicant was married or not. May Paterson. Slay Paterson. was tho next witness. Sho stated that she was an| unmarried woman, and by laundry employee. She knew Aitken, and had lived . with him as his wife from about August, 190S, until May, 1912. In February, 1910,she went to Auckland, and there gavo birth to a child. Aitken was the father of the child. Witness went on to say that the birth of the child was registered at Tauranga. Tho name of the child as registered was "Phyllis V. Aitken." She gavo the registration form in to the postmaster at Tauranga* wljo, she understood, was registrar of births. Witness signed in the book (produced), "May Aitken." It was also recorded in tho book that witness had stated that she was married to Samuel Francis Aitken, in Sydney, on August 21, 1907. Continuing her evidence (after a question by the Chief-Detective), witness admitted that sho was not married, and the entry in the book as to her nlarriago was untrue. As far as witness knew, Aitken was not Witness remembered defendant obtaining a license for tho National Hotel. She lived with him for several weeks' at the hotel after ho had obtained the license. The Registrar's Rocords. Evidence as to the registering of the child was given by W. W. Cook, Eegis-trar-General of Births and Deaths in New Zealand, and also Joseph L. Palethorpe, Deputy-ltegistrar-General of Births and Deaths. Counsel for defendant asked Mr. Talethorpe if lie knew defendant, to which the latter replied that his faco was familiar. ! He said that a Samuel Francis Aitken was married by him (witness) to Clara Ashby on February 13 cf this year. Mr. Perry: You can't swear that the accused is the man you married on February 13 of this year? Witness: No. This concluded the evidence for tho prosecution. . Accused pleaded not guilty, and was committpd to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed in the sum of ,£IOO, with two sureties of .£SO each. OTHER CASES. (Before Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M.) THE STANDARD OF THE MILK. ' Charges of adulteration of milk were preferred against John Kirbv, Edward Bloomficld, Felix Nozaic, and Wm. 'Kcid. Kirby, who was represented by Mr. V. RpMereditli, was fined 205., with costs 75,, in default -18 hours' imprisonment. . Bloomfiold was represented by Mr. New-

man, and was fined a similar amount; nnd lieid, for whom Mr. J. J. M'Grnth appeared, was fined 10s., and costs 7s. Nozaic, who was not represented by counsel, was fined 205., and costs 75., in default 48 hours' imprisonment. SMASHED A .610 WINDOW. "Ho has been repeatedly beforo the Court, nnd has just returned from the Roto Roa Inebriates' Home," 6aid. SubInspector Sheenan, when Richard Shields had been charged with being found drunk, and having broken a plate-glass window valued at £10, tho property 'of tho City Corporation. Mr. E. Beechy, who represented the City Council, stated that ho could give no explanation as to why accused had acted in tho manner indicated by tho charge. Accused pleaded guilty to_ both' charges, ■and on tho first was convicted and discharged, and on tho other chargo his Worship ordered Shields to pay tho cost of tho damage, in default, ono month's imprisonment. DESERTION. William Church, a seaman by occupation, was charged with deserting from the steamer Turakina at Lyttelton, on January 28 last. Accused pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to ono month's imprisonment. ' "PERSISTENT CRUELTY." Elizabeth Ashe asked for ft separation order from her husband, Thomas Ashe, on the ground of persistent cruelty. Complainant stated that she was married 23 years ago, and tlioro were twelve children, seven being under 16 years of age. His Worship granted tho separation order, and gave complainant custody of the children, the defendant to pay 10s. a week towards the maintcnanco of his wifo and Is. Gd. per week for each child under 1G years of age. MAINTENANCE ORDER. Application was made by Mary Anno Haslom for tho enforcement of an order for payment of 17s Gd. per week by her husband, a baker, now in Auckland. The order was made in July last, but she had not received any money sinco December last. V ' Defendant, who did not appear, was ordered to pay the amount due, in default ono month's imprisonment. TRESPASSING. Robert George charged liis 6on, Henry George, with (Jrespassing on his pro- , perty. Complainant said that his son was 28 years of age, and was a polisher by trade, but did'not work. Defendant was fined <10s.[ in default seven days' imprisonment. INSOBRIETY. For insobriety, Olaf Nelson and Edward Sullivan were each fined 10s., in default 48 hours' imprisonment. Thomas' Reynolds, on a similar charge, was reported to bo suffering from the effects of liquor, and was remanded for a week. Sis first offenders were dealt with. BANKRUPTCY COURT. A sitting of tho Bankruptcy Court was held yesterday, beforo Mr, Justice Edwards. . Discharges wcro granted in tho case of Walter Alexander Morrison (Mr. O. R. B&ere), Georgo Pudney (R. H. Webb), and John Milesi. The application of Walter Henry Hew--9011 (Mr. A. R. Atkinson) was adjourned until March 14; on which date the Court will sit at fff.3o a.in.