CHARGE Of PERJURY

Hokitika Guardian, 22 August 1928, Page 4

CHARGE Of PERJURY

“DISQITKTING FACTORS.’’ WANGANUI, Aug. 18.. A hoy, aged 15 years nine months, was charged in the Children’s Court to-day, before Mr J. S. Barton, S.M., with committing perjury on August 13 during the hearing of a ■ charge against a. shopkeeper in Somme Parade for Sunday trading. Constable AViHots said licensed was a witness in the case, and gave evidence. He stated that he bad bought a drink ot lemonade, and that the storekeeper bad given him two cinnamon bars. Ho later admitted in Court that this statement was not true, and that the statement lie had previously given to the police that, lie had bought thelolly bars was correct. The head of the home whore the boy lived was the next witness. The Magistrate gave witness a warning before bo gave bis evidence. He said that it as an extremely seiious matter. If a dean breast wore made of it, probably no more would be heard about it. The buying of cinnamon bars might be- a trivial affair, but perjury was a most serious matter. He did not want to see witness blunder into something without warning. Witness said to the Magistrate that he could rely oil iiis evidence. Continuing, he said that, ho went to seethe shopkeeper, who said that- at times he had given the hoy lollies for running messages. Witness supposed that it was his fault that, ho had put a wrong construction on it. In fact, it was his fault, and lie vould take

the blame. He told the hoy on the day of the case that lie would lie asked questions, and lie was to say that the lollies had been given to him. The boy told witness be had made a statement to the constable, hut could not remember what was in it. He believed the boy told him. he had purchased the cinnamon bars.

The shopkeeper, who was charged with Sunday trading, said the hoy asked for a stick of lolly at the shop. Ho did not have a drink in the shop The previous witness called upon him with the hoy before the case, and was very excited at the time, and it wasi hard to get any information out of him.

The Magistrate said lie did not want to say too much about the case now, as lie bad not decided upon whether ho would deal with the boy, or send him to the Supreme Court. There were three very disquieting factors made clear by the evidence. One was the fact that a youth is .summoned by the police as a witness, and

someone interferes with him, and goes back to the man who is accused. That was a most dangerous tiling for any person to do—to interfere with a police witness. The second fact was the suggestion to a police witness what he should say in the !k>x. Thirdly, added the Magistrate, evidence seemed clearly to indicate that per-jury-had been committed. The Magistrate then intimated that he would give permission to the Press to publish the evidence, hut- he ordered the boy to appear again before him on Momlav.