APPEAL COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1059, 21 October 1911, Page 3

APPEAL COURT.

PECULIAR CASK.

A peculiar case came before the Appeal Court on Thursday. It was the case of H. M. King v. Charles Boakes, and had reference to the conviction of Boakes for perjury at the last criminal sittings of the Supreme Court in Auckland, before Mr Justice Chapman. In slating the case, Mr Justice Chapman set out that Boaks had been arraigned at Auckland lor perjury. The substance of the charge was that, in the Magistrate’s Court at Auckland, on February 13 last, Boakes had denied the paternity of a certain child. The charge also had reference to three other statements made, on that occasion, by Boakes. At the trial, Boakes had been defended by Mr J. R. Lundon, who bad addressed the jury late at night, and had explained that he would be absent at Hamilton next morning at the sittings there.

When the Crown prosecutor was addressing the jury next morning (Mr Lundon being absent), the complainant in the paternity case sat in the witness box with a baby in her arms. The baby was apparently about the same age as the child mentioned would be. It had fair, curly hair resembling that of the prisoner, and this was brushed in much the same way as prisoner’s. During his address, the Crown Prosecutor had referred to the child in Court, but had immediately been stopped by the Judge. The jury, alter a retirement of over lour hours, had brought in a verdict ot guilty on the three first assignments.

His Honour, not being satisfied that the jury had not been influenced by the presence of the child, and, believing that the child had Iven brought into Court lor the purpose of convincing the jury that it resembled the prisoner, deterred sentence, and ordered .Lioak.es to present himself at the next criminal sessions.

A special case had then been stated by the judge for the Court of above, it being suggested that the Court should assume that Boakes was applying for a new trial. The question for the Court was as to whether the facts set out were such as to vitiate the verdict. If the Court was of opinion that the verdict could be regarded as properly attributable to the evidence, it was asked to determine whether the conviction should be quashed or whether there should be a new trial.

After hearing argument the Court reserved its decision.