Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PERJURY CASE.

(Per Press Association.) Auckland, last night An unusual incident broke the mono tODy of the Supreme Court yesterday morning. A prisoner named Joseph Gar diper had been found guilty of having committed perjury in tbe Hamilton Magis trate’s Court by denying on oath that he had acoused his wife of infidelity with a policeman at Taumarunui. In giving their verdict the jury had reoommended olemency on the ground that accused’s mind was disturbed by his extraordira-y domestic surroundings. Before announcing sentence, His Honor Mr Justice Edwards made some strong comments upon Mr Lundon'e conduct of the ease, specia’ly with reference to tbe evidence given by prisoner’s two ohildren, particularly a boy, foreign to the matter unjer tria', end only intended to degrade I their mother, jibe prisoner’s wife,

Mr Lundon protcg'pd against the suggestion that he knew that anything these people had said was false. The brief was banded to him containing the boy’s statement, before ever he saw or heard the boy. His Honor then proceeded so address prisoner, and denounced in strong terms his action in going into the witness bos to again commit perjury and in *■ tutoring little ohildren to defame their mother. You are not," said His Honor, “ wholly responsible for your dofence. Thai re sponsibility. rests on other shoulders in pert, but you are responsible for your own perjury, commiltad in this box yesterday, and you are responsible for bringing those little children into Court, the boy obviously telling a tissue of falsehoods of a most absurd character, with no object except to defamo their mother, who is still your wife.” .If the prisoner had any complaint to make about his wife, he could have proceeded against her on the civil aiflA and nrf,if,innod f.m a

oner’s conduct deserved very sevpre punishment. Tho law limited sentence to seven years, but in consideration of the jury’s recommendation he would pass a comparatively light sentence of one year's imprisonment.;

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GIST19051202.2.15

Bibliographic details

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1617, 2 December 1905, Page 2

Word Count
324

PERJURY CASE. Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1617, 2 December 1905, Page 2

PERJURY CASE. Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1617, 2 December 1905, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert