ALLEGED PERJURY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2054, 15 April 1907, Page 4

ALLEGED PERJURY.

Coorgo Stubbs was charged at Tv a pier with having cm March 11th. (litiin tlm hearing of a case in tho Mngistrato’s Court, Napier, in which Edvrrd Pointon was charged with tho't, committed perjury by lalsoly swearing that bo was not in certain hotels on Thursday, March 7th. Mr. Lusk appeared for the informant, Edward Pointon, and Mr. Westall for tho defendant.

Mr. Lusk, in opening lor the prosecution, said that at tho hearing ol tho charge of thoTt against Pointon,. Stubbs was practically the prosecutor, as ho was tho man from whom money was alleged to have been stolon, and therefore his evidence was most essential. It might bo S,lEgosted that tho evidence of Stubbs was not relevant to the mam issue, but still under the definition of perjury in tho Criminal Code that did not matter. If a man swore anything he knew to bo false with the intention of misleading the Couit, u was guilty of committing perjury. Hut ho (counsel) would contend that tho evidence was material to the main issue, if only as regarded the credibility of the witness. During the evidence Stubbs had sworn that he met Pointon for the first time on the day of the alleged theft on the Marine Parade at 10.30 a.m., that he had not boon with Pointon early in the morning in the Central and Albion Hotels and that he had not been in the Criterion during the same day Evidence would bo called to show,that Stubbs was in the Central and Albion Hotels, with Pointon early that morning and had drink in each, and that he also visited the Criterion Hotel twice during the day. Ho (counsel) had additional evidence of a peculiar nature, namely, an affidavit made by Stubbs in which lie admitted havinc made the statements alleged under oath and that they wore incorrect, adding that ho had made the affidavit, which was sworn before Mr H P. Cohen, J.P., voluntarily, and in tho hopo that it would save the time of the Court and needless expenditure. Evidence was given for tho prosecution by Constable McAllister, Theodore Lawlor, H. P. Cohen, James Glcoson, T. Y- Simpson, Thomas Helmo, and J. S. Master. Mr. Westall submitted that there was no ease to answer. The infonna'tion was laid under soction 113 of tin Criminal Code, which read as follows: “Perjury is an assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, or knowledge, made by a witness in a judicial proceeding as part of his evidence upon oath or affirmation, whether such evidence is given in open Court or b> affidavit or otherwise, such assertion being known to such witness to be false, and being intended by him tt> mislead the Court, jury, or person holding the proceeding.” The main ingredients, Mr. Westall contended, were therefore that tho person makin„ the false statement must know it to°bc false, and that lie intended to mislead the Court. Neither of these things had been proved in tho present case. Ho was not attempting to defend tho disgusting practice of men going from hotel to hotel and getting more and more muddled every time, but ho did submit that when anyone did so he was very unlikely to remember everything that occurred and every hotel he visited. Mr. Stubbs was a man of exceptional ability and possessing, as a justice of the peace, a sound knowledge of Court procedure, and that such a man should bo brought before the Bench and under such circumstances showed that ho must have been either demented or drunk. There was no suggestion that lie was demented ; there was evidence that at the time he was under the influence of liquor. .Drunkenness was no excuse for crime, but certainly should be taken into consideration with regard to the defendant’s intention, and intention to mislead the Court was an essential part of perjury. Mr. Stubbs had admitted being in four hotels on the same day, and it would be absurd to say that he, attempted to mislead the Court by denying that he was in three others.

Mr. Lusk said that the defendant had been described by his counsel as a man of more than ordinary ability, well acquainted with tho procedure of the Court. If so, ho must have known that to have gone into the witness box and made statements which ho said ho was prepared to adhere to, and which wore untrue, was committing perjury. The depositions in the case showed that Stubbs had tried to mislead the Court right through, because he swore that in all tho hotels he admitted being in he only took “soft” drink. It was only necessary for the prosecution to establish a prime facie case, and, Mr. Lusk submitted, that had been done by proving the falsity of tho statements made by Stubbs under oath. It was impossible to prove what the defendant’s intention had been in making these statements —it would be for him to explain that at tho proper time—but the strong presumption was that ho intended to mislead the Coprt before which the charge of theft was being heard.

His Worship said the only point that gave him any trouble was that Mr. Lusk had said about its being necessary to make out a priina iacic case, but ho thought it would be wasting tho time of tho upper Court to send such a case for trial and therefore would not commit. The answers given hy Stubbs upon which the information had been laid were in crossexamination as to character. The evidence showed that ho had been drinking with everybody and anybody, and that ho was absolutely drunk some time between 12 and 2 o’clock. It was extremely likely that ho did not know what ho was doing or what had taken place. It was a very extraordinary thing that a

person holding a commission of the poaco should get into rather serious trouble and then try to get out of it by pleading drunkenness. He (His Worship) would have to consider whether or not it was bis duty to make representations about tho matter to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Westall said His Worship’: strictures wore undoubtedly deserved No one was more sensible than Mr St.ubbs of tho unfortunate position ir which bis own folly had placed him but it was due to him to say tbai since the occurrence bo bad not touched a drop of liquor, and did not intend to do so again.

His Worship repeated that he woith consider what steps ho should take it the matter.