PERJURY TRIAL

Evening Star, Issue 24326, 15 October 1942, Page 6

PERJURY TRIAL

HEARING CONTINUED The hearing of the charge of perjury against Christopher Arthur Butler was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon before Mr Justice Kennedy. The accused was charged that, in judicial proceedings at the Police Court on October 10, 1941, ho falsely stated, in connection with a collision between a rake of trucks and a motor car driven by James Janett Adam, that he and a fellow railway employee, Thomas CosgrifE, had been riding on the leading truck in the rake, and he was, with his fellow-employee, displaying a lighted lantern, whereas in truth and in fact neither of them was so acting. The accused, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr C. J. L. White and Mr T. O’Shea. Mr J. M. Paterson represented the Crown Prosecutor. A number of witnesses gave evidence that tended to show that there was no one riding in the leading truck and that no lights had been shown from the truck at the time of the collision. Detective-sergeant Gibson detailed interviews with the accused, in which he maintained that he and CosgrifE were riding in the leading open wagon and were carrying regulation railway lamps lighted. When on July 30, witness interviewed accused and told him that the Crown intended to prosecute both him and CosgrifE for giving false evidence in the Police-Court, accused again denied that he had done so. This completed the case for the Crown. Mr White stated that evidence was being called for the defence. Mr O’Shea, opening the defence, said that 'the railwayman who had given evidence when Adam was prosecuted in the lower court in October, 1941, for a breach of the Government Railways Act, would repeat that evidence. Both Butler and CosgrifE would state that they were -on the shunt when the accident occurred. Butler would say that when the accident occurred he had run towards a second motor car to prevent its becoming mixed up in the collision. At this stage the court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day. THIS MORNING’S PROCEEDINGS. The hearing was resumed this morning, when the accused went into the witness box. He stated that he was 45 years of age and had been a shunter for the past six years. He was in charge of the shunt on the night of the accident, a porter named CosgrifE was working with him, and the engine driver was a man named Green. It was a regulation of the Railway Department that on a shunt of this description a man should walk in front, but this was not always observed, and was not done on this occasion. Regarding his movements at the time of the accident, witness said he and CosgrifE were both on the leading van, but were standing on opposite sides. When the collision occurred witness gave the red light to the engine driver, and “ after a wee while ” the train pulled up. Witness then alighted and spoke to the driver of the motor car, but he could not remember whether the latter had then mentioned anything about not seeing any light. Witness went away to stop another motor car which was coming along the road. He had not been running when he approached the car which had collided with the train. Witness added that he was of a nervous disposition, and naturally became excited on such an occasion as that of the collision. Cross-examined by Mr Paterson, witness, demonstrating how he had held the lamp, said that the light was directed towards oncoming traffic from Dunedin, and would not be visbile by the occupants of a motor car approaching from the side. His Honour: The beam of a torch used by a person walking in a blackout penetrates in directions other than immediately in front. Witness answered that in a torch there was a bulb; the lamp used by him was an oil lamp and had no glass at the sides. Mr Paterson; I suggest to you that the engine driver pulled up when - he felt the bump of the collision; that he had not got any signal at all. Witness: I would not say that at all. He added that about 40 seconds would have elapsed before he reached Adam’s car after the collision. He did not remember Adam saying anything to him then. Mr Paterson: You heard Mr Meekan’s statement that a railway employee asked •the question. “ Where’s my mate? He should have been here with a light.” Was that you? Witness said he could not remember saying that. He could, however, not deny it. Thomas CosgrifE said that as the shunt approached the crossing witness had shown a red light to the driver and shouted when he saw a motor car coming along the road at a right angle to the train. Witness then got off the train and ran back to the engine, and told the driver that the car had been hit. Butler had also given the driver a red light. The driver had twice blown his whistle as he approached the crossing. Witness was certain that Butler was in the truck with him at the time of the collision. John Joseph Green, engine driver, said that following the two blasts of the whittle which he had given on approaching the crossing, he received a red light from the right hand of the front of the shunt. (Proceeding.)