CHARGE OF PERJURY AGAINST A BARRISTER.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 7, Issue 378, 21 May 1866, Page 1

CHARGE OF PERJURY AGAINST A BARRISTER.

George Elliot Barton barrister-at-law, appeared in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Dunedin, on Tuesday, to answer an information for having on the 15th March 1866, committed perjury in an affidavit sworn in a certain matter then pending in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The investigation into the circumstances of this case occupied two days, and the matter of enquiry was whether a Mr James Ure did o& did not promise to pay £SO, far services rendered by Mr Barton, in respect to the settlement of the boundaries of certain runs, including one purchased by Mr Russell.

TLe following is the decision of the Bench : We have carefully considered the evidence adi-uced in this case.' As far as the prosecu!or and the defendant are concerned, their toa’emcnts are opposed to each other—it is taih against oath; and as it is necessary that perjury should be made out by two witnesses, or by one witness and some corroborative document or circumstance in addition, we consider there is not sufficient evidence to warrant us in sending the case for trial. The only witness called by the prosecution in support of the charge—in addition to the prosecutor himself—was Mr Smythie, whose testimony does contradict the sworn statement ot the defendant on the material points; and the prosecution have failed to produce any corroborative document or circumstance in addition to the evidence of tire prosecutor. For these reasons, we dismiss the information, and the accused is discharged.” Here was some applause in the court on the announcement of the decision, but it was immediately .suppressed.