A WAGES CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 87, 22 April 1901, Page 1

A WAGES CASE.

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH PERJURY. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) Christchurch, Saturday. A charge of perjury against R. Y. Hood and his wife was heard in the Magistrate’s Court this morning. It was alleged against them that in a civil action, Clara Clark v. Robert Willian Hood, they committed perjury by swearing that they paid plaintiff two cheques of £8 and £2, whereas the cheques were paid to other people. The defence was reserved, and accused were committed for trial. Bail was allowed, accused in £2OO each, and two sureties of £l5O each. | Christchurch Truth.]

The complicated and contradictory Hail' mer Plains wages case—Clara Clark v B. W. Hood—came to a sensational ending at the Magistrate’s Court this morning. The plaintiff obtained judgment for the greater part of her claim, and the defendant was charged with perjury and remanded for a week.

The case is a most extraordinary one. From the nature and amount of the claim, the circumstances leading up to the claim, and the astounding evidence given at Culverdcn when the case was heard, and the still more astounding evidence given this morning. Clara Clark, the plaintiff, had been employed by Mr Hood for some considerable time at Hanmer Plains, and left with a considerable amount owing to her on account of wages —£67 17s, was the exact amount stated by her to be due.

During the hearing of the caso at Culverden the defendant and his wife swore that, in addition to other payments, they had paid the girl a cheque for £8 in November, 189 S, and a cheque for £2 in December, 1897.

This morning Mr G. T. Weston, who appeared for the plaintiff, led evidence to show that these two cheques had been paid to other persons altogether. Henry George Clarke, merchant, Christchurch, stated that on December 13th, 1898, he received a cheque from Mr Hood on account of food supplied. The cheque was taken to the National Bank and placed to his account. Henry Gordon, sub-accountant at the National Bank, identified the deposit slip, which- accompanied the cheque, and produced another cheque for £2, which had been paid in December, 1897. Miss Holland, who was employed by Hood, in 1897, said she received a cheque for £2 from Mrs Hood at the ond of 1897. The witness considered the cheque produced by the last witness the one she had received from Mrs Hood.

Mr T. G. Bussell, who appeared for the defence, said there was no doubt that Mr Hood had made a mistake with regard to these two cheques. He asked his Worship to reserve his opinion as to whether Hood had deliberately committed perjury, and in any case to consider that Hood had given his evidence honestly, but mistakenly. Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., said that tho impression on his mind, from the evidence, was that tho wages book was a complete fraud, and that the entries had been made subsequently, and the book had, in fact, beon made up from the pass book. If the view he had taken was correct, then two respectable citizens—the defendant and his wife—must have committed perjury. Mr Bussell replied that people frequently made mistakes, but it did not follow that everything they said untruthfully was wilfully said. The hawker had said tlipt the girl had bought the goods and they were suppied to her. The accounts were given to her, and after they had been examined the money was paid by Mr Hood to tho hawker. Mr Bussell requested his Worship not to allow his judgment to be swayed. If he considered the girl had the goods he would see the mistake Hood had made.

Mr Bishop, in delivering judgment, said that the plaintiff could not hope to recover the whole amount of her claim of £67 17s. He eamo to the mam question which was. involved in the case, and for which it has been re-opened, and that was the startling discrepancy in the evidence of the defendant and his wife. Continuing, Mr Bishop said that this was one of the most disgraceful cases he had ever had before him. The defence was built up on fraud, perjury, and .a conspiracy. If it had not been for a mere accident tho girl would have certainly found herself robbed by the defendant of any amount of money she might be justly entitled to. That being so, naturally when a magistrate was faced with the fact that there had been such a gross attempt to mislead justice as there uad been in the present case, he became indifferent, and felt that he was entirely at the mercy of parties in the Court who conspired to commit perjury, he was bound to see that the attempt was frustrated, and the perpetrator punished. If a mistake like that was made—a gross attempt to mislead justice—and if an excuse of mistake was accepted, the sooner they recognised the fact that magistrates were at the mercy of unscrupulous parties, the better. The magistrates would then know what to do.

After Mr Bishop had given judgment for tho plaintiff for £42 17s and costs, he said that he would order a prosecution of defendant and his wife; one must be equally guilty with the other. At anyrato it was a ease for further scrutiny. Addressing Sub-Inspector Black, who was orcsent in Court, Mr Bishop asked him to jc good enough to see that the defendant, Bobert William Hood, and his wife, were both prosecuted for perjury. Sub-Inspector Black undertook to do this at once.

Mr Bishop then left tho Bcneli, and after about fifteen minutes interval, Mr R. Beetbam, S.M. took his seat.

Bobert William Hood was then charged with having, on March 13th, at Culverden, committed perjury in a civil action brought by Clara Clark against himself, by swearing that he paid two cheques to the plaintiff on account of wages, one for £B, on November 14th, 189 S, and one for £2 on on December 25th, 1897.

Mr Bussell said that he appeared for the accused.

Sub-Inspector Black applied for a re, mand for a week.

Mr Beetham, S.M., remanded the accused accordingly until 10 ('/clock on Saturday morning next. Mr Bussell thereupon applied for bail, His Worship granted the application, and allowed bail, accused in .£3OO, and two sureties in £l5O each. The bondsmen were immediately forthcoming, Mr Charle. wood being one, and Mr Buddie the other.

Mr Bussell mentioned to the Magistrate that Mr Bishop, S.M,, had ordered the Sub-Inspector to prosecute not only Mr Hood, but bis wife. Mrs Hood was at present in such a serious condition that it might endanger her life to bring her down to Christchurch from Hanmer Plains, and Mr Bussell suggested that the ease should be heard before Justices at Hanmer Plains.

Mr Beetham pointed out that there was not n courthouse at Hanmer Plains, and said that he would have to issue a summons for Mrs Hood’s appearance in Christchurch on Saturday next* In the meantime, Mr Bussell could make any application he wished, backed by a medical certificate. kl#