ALLEGED PERJURY

Hokitika Guardian, 5 October 1920, Page 4

ALLEGED PERJURY

MAGISTRATE DIRECTS A PROSECUTION.

PALMERSTON N.; Sept. 30,

Reserved judgment in the case F. S. Easton v. A. M. Wright, which was heard on September 17 at Foxton, was delivered by Mr J. L. Sout, S.M., this afternodn. His Worship summed up the evidence ns follows This is a claim, for £2OO upon a dishonoured cheque given by defendant to plaintiff on March 17, 1911, in payment for the racehorse Stevens, which defefulant had purchased from plaintiff. The cheque was not presented Until July 26, 1920, when payment was refused by the bank on account of its being a stale cheque. The defendant has pleaded the Statute of Limitations, and further that the horse had been taken back by plaintiff and that the cheque should have been destroyed, as the consideration for it had failed. Plaintiff stated that the cheque was not presented immediately because defendant had asked him not, to do so, because he was not in funds, and that defendant had never let him know when he was in funds. His counsel had contended that the Statute of Limitations would not start to run until the defendant had notified plaintiff that he could present the cheque. The cheque,' however, was not post-dated, and plaintiff could have presented it at any time or asked for payment of the purchase money. The fact that he allowed defendant some latitude was not sufficient, in my opinion, to postpone the operation of the statute. The cheque should have been presented within reasonable time, at any rate within six months, and the time would have run from then. My opinion, therefore, is that the debt is statutebarred. I think, however, that the evidence shows that plaintiff’s action in presenting the cheque at all was a piece of sharp practice. It is admitted that defendant was disqualified some few months after the sale of tlse horse, and the evidence, in. my opinion, shows that plaintiff then took the horse back and dealt with it as liis own. He leased it to one Trask, who raced it in his own name, and it .got into place-money on three occasions. Trask stated the lease was in writing and registered with the racing authorities, and that he had paid 20 per cent of the winnings to plaintiff, and further, that plaintiff after the horse had broken down presented it to witness Trask. Trask's evidence is corroborated by defendant and also by the “Turf Register,” and I understood that the lease, Easton to Trask, was actually registered, was for a period of two years, and expired on May 15,1915. This was not actually proved in Court, hut the information was obtained later by letter from the secretary of the racing authorities, and I have no reason to doubt it. Easton, therefore, knew when he presented the cheque that he bad called the sale off when defendant was disqualified, and lie, therefore, was guilty of fraud in presenting the cheque some seven years after he had taken the horse back. Further, he, in my opinion, committed deliberate perjury and attempted wilfully to mislead the Court in denying that he had taken the horse back, that he had leased to Trask, and that he had subsequently presented it to Trask. As this is the view I take of his evidence, I would fail in my duty if I took no official notice of his conduct. I have, therefore, directed his prosecution for perjury. Judgment will be for the defendant, with the usual costs.