ALLEGED PERJURY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2202, 13 November 1920, Page 2

ALLEGED PERJURY.

F. S. EASTON ON TRIAL

The trial of Frederick Spencer Easton, on charges of perjury, commenced at the Palmerston Supreme Court yesterday morning, before his Honour, Mr Justice Chapman. Mr T. M. Wilford appeared for the accused, and Mr P. S. K. Macassey for the Crown. ’ The Court was crowded with spectators throughout the day.

The accused was indicted on live charges arising out of a civil action, Easton v. \Vrigid, in which Easton claimed .€2OO on a dishonoured cheque given in payment for the racehorse Stevens. As the result of Easton’s evidence in the case, which was heard at Foxton, the-presiding Magistrate, Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., ordered his prosecution for perjury. The charges against the accused were that ho had wrongfully alleged: —(J) That he had never taken llm horse Stevens hack from Alfred Mitchell Wright after having sold into him. (2) That the horse was never .on his property after the transaction. (3) That he had not leased the horse to anyone after the sale to Wright. (4) That he had not leased the horse to William George Trask after the sale to Wright. (5) That he had not subsequently given the lior.se to Trask. THE JURY. The following jury was empanelled after thirteen challenges from the respective parties: —G. W. Fuller (foreman), G. Wehh, F. W, Ward, A. Parsons, A. R. Campbell, G. Muller, T. Fenton, C. Hopnan, G, Simpson, IT. Kilsley, E. Gilslman, and A. (J. Galpin. PROSECUTION OPENED, Mr Macassey, opening the ease for the Crown, stressed the fact that Easton was a shrewd and wealthy business man, and that when he had gone into the box he had known the significance of his evidence. The Grown would call witnesses to prove dial Easton had sold the-horse Stevens to Wright in 1911, and that when Wright had been disqualified in 1912, as the result of the late •scratching of a horse called The Rover for the Grand National, Easton had agreed to take the horse back. He had subsequently leased it to a trainer called Trask, to whom Easton had given Stevens when the horse had broken down. The perjury consisted iu denying, under < ross-examiuation that he had taken Stevens back from Wright; that he had leased him to Trask, or that (he horse had ever been hack on his place at Moutoii after he had been^__ < | sold to Wright. ho called to prove the registration of the lease from Easton to Trask with the Racing Conference, and its publication in (lie New Zealand Referee, the official organ of (he Racing Coin fcrcncc, and the Racing Calendar. A. notification of the subsequent gift of Stevens to Trask appeared m The Sporting and Dramatic Review.” The Crown Prosecutor submitted the following letter, writ leu by the accused to Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., after the latter’s instruction to have Easton, prosecuted for perjury;— October' 1, 1920. J, L. Stout, Esq., S.M., Palmerston North.

Sir. —Y<mv decision, Huston v. Wright, 1 rend with greet sorrow, end must nbide by it. Tlie Almighty is tlit; only One that ean tell ns time goes on, and I trust the longer you know me and nil parties, the more eonvim-ed yon will be in passing oil sneh a drastic verdict upon my future. For Ood only knows my kindness and trustworthiness to my L'ellow-men in all their trials and troubles in the past. —1 remain, vour obedient servant, F. S. EASTON. F.S. —Showing my innoeenee, J. wired after your silting on the 17th instant to Racing Conference, and got their reply.—F.S.H. CLERK OF COURT’S EVIDENCE. Frederick Woods, police constable, and clerk of the Court at Fo.vlon daring the hearing of the ease, Easton v. Wright,-said that Easton in his evidence said that in 1011 lie had sold a racehorse Slovens to A. M. Wright, a horse trainer, for .C2OO. He had not presented the cheque at the lime, as lie did not think that Wright had money to meet it. He had written to Wright in July, 1!)2<I, telling him that he intended to present the cheque. Not getting any reply, he had instructed his solicitors lo sue for it. He had demanded the payment of the cheque ns Wright had a win of a couple of thousand at the recent Wellington Winter meeting. Air Ongiey had asked Easton if lie had received lliq horse back after Wright bad been disqualified, and whether he had subsequently leased the horse to Trask. Easton replied “No.” He also denied giving Stevens to Trask when the horse had broken down, and that (he horse had been back on his property after it had been sold to 'Wright. Air J. I’. Innes, counsel for Easton, in re-examination, had asked Easton if the' horse had been taken back on lo perly by Wright. AN ANCIENT QUARREL.

.Mr Wiiford: You ami .EaMon arc not. on very good terms / Yu we have nut spoken since I secured his conviction in 1908. —Wright is a particular croney of yours? No, lie is not. —Did you hear Mr Easton say in Court that if there were a lease it would he registered with the Racing Conference? —No, but I would not swear that he did not say so. —Ail he said was that he had never had the horse hack on his place from Wright since lie .sold it to Wright ? That, is so. WRIGHT’S LAWYER,

Arthur Montague Ongley, solicitor, said he had appeared for the defendant Wright in the ease, Bas-

ton v.’ Wright. Easton denied taking the horse hack from Wright niter be had sold it, to him, and that it had never been back on Ids property. He denied ever leasing Hie horse to anyone at till after sellinglo Wright. Easton bad said that be bad never leased Stevens to Trask, nor bad be given him to Trask. W itness had produced a page train the Sporting and Dramatic' Review, recording the gift of Stevens to Trask. Easton said that the paragraph was without foundation. Easton had not said that it there was a lease it would have been registered by the Racing Conference. If Easton had said so lie did not hoar it. To Mr Wilford: It Mr limes said that Ihe Racing Conference wamentioned he would not deny it. You admit that blast on said that he had never taken the horse back from Wright. Did you ever ask him whether he bad ever taken the horse back from Trask? No. To Mr Maeassey: Easton bad denied that. Stevens bad ever been on his,properly after the sale. Mr Wilford: Oh, no; that was a mistake. MAGISTKATEAS EVIDENCE. John Logan Stout, Stipendiary Magistrate, said he had presided at Ihe Magistrate’s Court at Foxton,, in the ease Easton v. Wright. Easton had given evidence on his own behalf, and the claim had been on a stale cheque, and it was sought to provjj that plaintiff was not barred by Statute. Mr Ougley asked whether the horse bad not been taken back from Wright, or whether the horse had been brought back to bis property. He. also asked whether’ lie had subsequently leased the horse to anyone. Hi 1 denied taking the horse hack from \\ right ; denied that it had been subsequently q? 1 his place, or that he had leased it to auvoue. He denied also Dial he had leased the horse to Trask. Witness did not hear Easton make any reference to the lease being registered with the Racing Conference. This question did not arise until Trask gave evidence of a lease, and said that it had been registered wjlh the Racing Conference. Witness had I hen said that the matter could he cleared up easily. In deciding the disc, he had to take into account wheiher tin* horse had been leased, by Easton subsequent to the sale |o Wright, in which case the sale would he void. He had given judgment for defendant on Die grounds (hat Die debt had been Statute .barred, and that he had treated Die horse as Lis own. He considered Easton had committed perjury, and NiJLircHod his prosecution.

- Mr’ -Wilfova: Ho you remember Wright saying (hut lie never arranged with Easpm jo take flu l horse hack, and thal 1 rusk came for it? Xo. —'If Easton had (old you of hi* mistako, these proceedings would not have been taken Probably not, Iml he did not tell am and he seemed (pule content .. to take the £2OO if I would give it to him. —Do you remember that there was any evidence by Wright ilia! he .handed over the horse early in 1913 ! lie said that he wa- hacking it about the road with Ea.-lmi- permission after Ids disqualifiedion, Mr Wilford suggested at tin--' juncture (hat when Mr Stout had made public his Judgment and view of the case Easton had become terribly handicapped. —Witness pointed out that under the Justices of the Peace Act he could have committed Easton for trial without- allowing' hail, but he had brought him up on ,-ummons in the ordinary way. lie 'could even have heard the ease aga'inst Easton himself, but had goi another magistrate to lake the cast! for him. REPORTER'S EVIDENCE. .Frank Wlublcy, “Eoxton Herald n reporter, gave evidence that Easton had denied leasing the horse tq Trask, and that he .had ever taken the horse back from anyone, VV RIGHT’S t>TORY. Alfred Mitchell Wright s.ijd thal on March 17th, 1911, he haul bought the horse Stevens, and the cheque for £2OO given in payment was to he held until witness was in funds. He had raced the horse at. Masierlon, Palmerston North, Eeikling and Hastings. There had been -an arrangement to train Eastons horses :il a fee of £2. In 1912 lie had been disqualified for the late scratching of The .Rover in the (■rand National Steeplechase, After the Marion meeting Easton had told him he would lake Stevens hack as he had never presented the cheque. Witness sent the horse back and went to work two months alia on Easton's property, paddoeking Jlax. He had started work on about December Ist, 1912. Easton was passing one day, and he said, “Get that, old horse in and ride him in and out to work.” Witness mentioned to him that he had been disqualified, and asked him whether it would make any difference. Easton said, “No, certainly not, I can give yon' any one of my horses to work. Trask had met him on the road one day and asked him whether the horse was fur sale. Witness said he did J 0& know anything about the .horse', but would enquire from the owner. Easton said Irask could have him for £290. Trask said he could not give £2OO tor a horse, and asked whether he could lease him. Easton consented to this, and the next witness knew Trask came along to take the horse from him. Trask had paid him for the feed and laid made out a receipt. He signed the receipt in Charley Easton’s shop. In June, 1920, he had rcee-’ ived a letter from Easton demanding payment for Stevens. Witness had seen a lawyer, but bad wade no reply. Another letter arrived in July, to which ho made no reply. At tho hearing of the civil case, Easton had told the Court that he had given witness permission to ride the- horse

backwards and forwards to work. Easton had denied giving a, lease to 'Trask, and had denied that the horse had ever been hack on his place. Mr Wilford: The date of the cheque given by you to Easton was March 17th, 191*1 ? Yes.—The date, of your disqualification was August* 17th, 1912, and you were warned off for two years? • Yes, —Because you were implicated with the bookmakers. This horse was ha deed by all and .sundry, and you scratched him to save the bookmakers, who had then a legal profession ? 1 scratched the horse because he had won a race the day before, and J. wanted to keep him fit to win more races. lie had injured himself over hurdles a year before. —He was over 1 the hurdles that morning? 1 wall not in Christchurch, 1 was in Foxton. —Why were you disqualified by the Christchurch .lockey Club 1 ?' As far as i know, because I lur'd scratched the horse. —Was it nrd because you were working with the bookmakers? That aGis suggested at flic enquiry.—His Honour: Is a man disqualified because he scratches his own horse? Witness: It seems so. Mr Wilford; The whole of the district committee’s enquiry was because of your crooked work with the bookmakers ? —I think they only said it was unfair to scratch a fav-> ouritc. Thai was all that was ever published. —Don’t tell this jury that that was why you were disqualified. Did you gel disqualified for your running of Rouen at Otaki the other day. or did you gel out of it ? There was nothing to get out of, 1 was never in it. The stewards were quite satisfied. Mr Wilford: You got possession of a horse from Mr Easton worth £2OO for a valueless cheque. Don’t you think if jvas a very while and decent thing for Easton to do, to give a man a start who had nothing? 1 thought so at I he. lime. — You took Hie horse and trained it and won £3OO in.stakes, and never made any oiler of payment.—lie could have had the .money if he had applied for it. I ottered to pay lor it one morning, hut he said. “No, that is all right!’’ —Did you not Id! Mr Easton that you had won money, hut that you were up to your eyes in debt ? No. —You deny that you admitted tint I Easton asked you for payment for Slovens al V biles Hold, Eo.vloit. or on the Fox I on racecourse: A (,s. —! want you |<> be quite candid, Wright. Is it not- a fact that after you were disqualified you made an arrangement with Trask lo act as vour dummy? No. —You sold your interns! in Stevens to Trask for £ls? No; 1 a-ked win. was going to pay lor the Iced Du !he horse, and he pan! me £ls. I. was uo| going to feed the horse for nothing. Mr Wilford: 1 suggest that the corse was yours all the tunc, and volt will not !dl the whole Dory lor fear of having yourself and ’i ra.sk disqualified for all lime. At this stage the clerk of the Court read the evidence ol the sec'clary of Ike Racing Conference in ivgiird lo the registration of tho case, and of Christchurch Cily Council employees ns lo its dost ruelion. All this evidence was heard : n the Lower Court. Trask’s evidence of a lease was read also, lie being too ill lo attend. THE, END HE STEVENS. Thomas Pntclcr said he had been Anil Stevens by Trask, and I ha I he had died in a swamp of a broken neck or broken back. WiMiam D’Atb, secretary of the Otaki Racing Club, gave evidence That S!evens had been raced in Trask s name. fleorge Walls, ex-,jockey, said that lie had visited the woolshed paddock on .the ffottloa Estate on several occasions, and had seen Stevens there, Frank T. Williams said he had worked for Easton in HH3. Tic had seen the chestiml gelding Stevens running in the wooisltcd paddock it! Mont on. ’ The horse was Hose handy, and could lie seen bV Easton, lie remembered Trask coining to iakc the horse away, hut he did mil do so, as’Slovens .had been hurl. He !lioughl that the horse must have been there for six months. THE DEFENCE. Mr Wilford said that his defence would he that the' facts were as, -dated, that Easton had never taken j he horse hack from Wright: that he ,!id yot recollect any lease to Trask, and would make 1 ire same statement on oath that he had made at the civil court. Easton also denied that lie had given the horse to Trask. 'MEDICAL EVIDENCE. Dr. C. E. M a util, T’oxloit, said that accused bad been badly affected by the inllnenza epidemic, and had complained of not being the same man since. Influenza might destroy the memory, and have very severe effects niton the nervous system. MENTAL BOOK-KEEPING. Thomas Heaven, farmer, Levin, said he was an intimate and Hose friend of the accused. There had been a great change in Easton since his illness with influenza. The accused suffered greatly with pains in ]he head, and his memory had not been good. Easton had no secretary, he was in a huge business, and earned all his transactions tu his head. His sou’s death had been a big blow to hint, and this had further affected him. To Mr Maeassey: Easton was reputed to be an enormously wealthy man, and employed a large numbii’ of men. All his transactions were in his head. EASTON'S, LAWYER. James Petrie lanes, barrister and solicitor, had acted as counsel for Easton in the case Easton v. Wright. He said lie had discussed the ease with Mr Ougley (counsel for defence), who said what the defence Atjpnld be, in addition to the

Statute of Limitations, that Easton badnaken the horse back. Tho Hr.-a ones!ions put by Mr Ongley had been :e- l.> whether he had got the horse hack' from Wright. Earner, denied also that, he had leased the horse to Trask, and said, “If I did, it would he registered with (.lie Racing Conference.” To Mr Maeassey: Easton had .-aid that the horse had never been on his properly after it had been leastd. UNUSUAL APPLICATION. At this stag,e Mr Wilford slating that be bad only three more witnesses to call at most, including- Easton, bis Honour adjourned the. Court. His Honour (to the jury); Tin’s adjournment really takes effect unfit 9 o’clock (o-morrow morning, but as I here arc some ladies waiting for a divorce, you need not attend until 10 o’clock, gentlemen. PRISONER ALLOWED HOME. Mr Wilford, to bis Honour: Your Honour, I am quite aware that it is an unusual thing for a judge to allow a prisoner indicted on a criminal charge tu go out of custody during his trail, but Easton’s wife is ill, and it is of great importance that he should be at home at this time. I am prepared to make you a special offer. If you allow him he will go straight home, and 1 will go with him. His Honour: I will leave him in your custody as an officer of the Court, and you will have him here I o-morrow morning. Mr Wilford; Yes, your Honour, ymu* confidence in me will not h'j misplaced.

s TO-DAY’S HEARING

DEFENCE CONTINUED. (By Telegraph). The ease was resumed at 10 o’clock this morning. ■ ACCUSED’S CHARACTER. Richard S, Abraham, of Mc.-.-rs Abraham ami -Williams, Ltd., said he had known the accused for 39 years. The hulk of Die business, done with him was verbally. He had always found him an honourable man, and never had any occasion to mis!nisi him or his word. Arthur Wakefield 'Ward, manager for Die Loan and Memintile Agency Co., Lid., of Palmerston N., said he knew the accused, and had business relations Avilh him over the last eighteen years. He always found him a straight forward and honest man. John Moore Johnston,. secretary ol' Die Manawiitn Racing Club, said he had known Du 1 accused well for the past 25' years. Had always found him a perfectly straightforward and honourable man, and would always take his word. Dr. Pu-lnam said a common sequel (o an attack of influenza Avcre lack of concentration am! loss of memory. ACCUSED’S EVIDENCE. Frederick Spencer'Easton -aid he was Die plaintiff in the action. Easton v. Wright, at Die Foxton Court. The cheque, the subject of the case, was dated .March 17lh, 1911. Wright met witness in the street, and asked what he wanted for Die racehorse Slovens, and told him. £299, and he said “Alright.” Wright -aid he was short of funds at Die lime, and asked witness to hold the cheque. Stevens was Avell worth ''299. Handed the horse to Wright between .March, 1911, and Align?-!, .1912, Thought Stevens Avon over £399 in stakes for Wright. Wright did not give witness one .shilling on recount of the purchase money. Witness asked Wright on several occasions about a settlement; for the horse, and had a conversation Avith Wright on the Foxton course, and asked him for the money, and WrijJhl said he avus short, and lie allowed him lo leave it over. Tills conversation took place during Die winter months before Wright was disqualified. When AVright was disqualified witness had two trainers, Tilley, at Fordell, and Trask, at Foxton. When Wright avus disqualified Elevens was in good racing condition. AVright did not return Dte horse to witness’ cemetery paddock, and ho was never in Dial paddock. This paddock is poor, sec-ond-class country. 11 was a holding paddock. Therefore could piny marbles on it during winter, with practically no feed. No one would pul a horse in full training in such a paddock. Witness said he swore that he never received Die horse hack from Wright, and this statement was quite , I rue. He never .-wore Dial Dm horse was never,on witnes;-' property. After the sale to AVright. He was not asked if the horse came on witness’ properly from Trask. Was only asked if the horse was sent hack to the property by AVright. Stevens .was in the woolshed paddock, and avus put there by Trask, never by Wright. The horse avus fired by Trask, and at his request witness alloAved the horse to be turned out'on his property. Robinson did not give evidence in the Magistrate’s Court, nor did AVilliams. Williams avus not working for witness as a ploughman in .1913, but was in 19.1-L Had no secretary, and keeps very few books. All witness' accounts arc kept by the Bank, ami Die only records witness keeps are his, cheque huts. Until lately he kept all his affairs in his head, and in June last turned over a lot of Dm work to Air Park, solicitor, of Levin. Thirty years ago he was working tor less than 5s a day, more like “fifteen bob a week." AA itness said he had never been paid for Stevens, and bad never been paid any of the winnings by AA’right or Trask. He knew Trask swore that Avitness got a percentage of the Avinxnngs. AA itness did not get anything. He knew Stevens Avas running in Trask’s name. AA’itness often lent Trask

money to lake Ins horses to meets lugs, and this was afterwards adjusted with his training fees. Could not-swear if Trask showed witness any receipt lie got from Wright for £JS. To ilie best of witness’ knowledge he never told Trask lie would burn (his receipt. He never gave Stevens to Trask. Had no recol-, lection of signing a lease of the horse to Trask. The first knowledge he had of the lease was in lb<s Foxton Court. Had no copy of such lease. Had no recollection of signing the lease. If lie had leased Die horse ho would not have taken the action on the cheque. Witness said when asked if thei'g was a lease he. denied it. - He believed that statement to be true. He believed now there was’ no lease. When Trask came out of the box witness asked him if he was sure there was a lease. He said, “Yes.” Witness then immediately wired to the Racing Conference, asking if there avus r. lease, and got a reply saying there was. Witness was asked by Mr Ougley if there was a lease. Witness replied on that occasion, “It there was it would be registered with Die Racing Conference.” Heard Mr limes give evidence yesterday, and agreed with his evidence as to whiit occurred. Still he has not the slightest recollect ion of any lease. Recently have found his memory has not been as good as previously. Was ill for about three inonlbs Avilh influenza in 1918, since then has had recurrences on and off, and his memory has become worse since his illness in 1918. Had never seen a conference lease form until one was produced in the loAver Court. Racing Calendar produced, and witness said he had never previously seen one. Witness was a regular subscriber to the Weekly Press, Heard the evidence of Walls, wlio said he saw Stevens in the woolshed paddock in ID 14. Witness admitted the horse was (here at Dus lane. Constable Woods and 'Witness were had friends. Don’t know when Trask got Stevens from Wright. Cross-examined by Mr Maeassey: Witness was a steward of Die Foxton Racing (Tub for about If years. He resigned three months ago. Don’t know if the Foxton Club gels the Racing Calendar. Mad .never seen it. First knew there was a lease‘of Stevens from witness lo Trask on September 1711 1 ,-1.9.12. Wouldn’t swear lie signed the lease (o Trask unless ho „mv ins sign aC . '■* 'litre oil it. Did imi remember signing Die lease. Would md swear that: Trask was telling 1 a lie. Can’t deny Trask’s statement. Have no recolkclion of it, and ask the Jury to hdieve Dial Trask was Ira’iimg for witness in HD3, training Lady Monioa.. Site Avon the Dawkcs’ Pan Cup. Tiiis was seven or eight years ago. Trask - ceased training for witness in DDS. The horse paid lifly odd pounds ai Hastings. Trask did train in witness' stables in Foxton, and trained Stevens al the same Dine. When Trask was training, witness saw. horses at Work about; once a week - . Was never before the Rangiiikci stewards for a corrupt ■practice with Die horse called Riant, “I think 1 can honestly swear that.”' Witness said lie could not recollect anything about it. This serious charge that witness was ('barged with had made him think. Mr Macasscy; Yes, undoubtedly, Willies.) was before Fcildiug stewards lavo or three years ago for accusing a jockey of hud riding. Will not swear he was not before tin 1 HangiI'ilcci stewards. Would not swear that witness made a complaint al Wellington against the .-tarter, O'Connor, about Lady Motiloa being left at the post. Wiggld was disqualified in .1912. Will swear the hor?!* was not taken hack on witness’ property from Wright. Will swear Stevens was not in the Cemetery paddock in 1912. Robinson was telling a lie when he said ho saw it there. Mr Maeassey asked if witness suggested I here avus a lease between Wright and Trask? Witness could only say 1. ean’l: swear. . His Honour: You are not mprovmg your reputation it you don’t answer questions in tt ;-(might forward way. The quc-limi was put again, and elicited the same answer as before. His Honour: Then you refuse lo answer? —1 can,l swear Stevens was not leased to Trask. Yfonld md contradict Trask’s statement on oath. Couldn’t swear Dial Trask .- statement (hat he was to pay witness a percentage on winnings was nol true. Witness wmibl .-wear' he did not lellWrighl to hack Stevens in and out lo Avork al witness’ mill. Did not sec him riding Slovens to\ or from .(he mill. Deniciflic made a present of the horse to Trask’s statement was not true. May have seen Prof ter riding Stevens. Would not dispute Procter's evidence. About four or five years ago witness- asked Wright for payment of Die horse in Whyte’s Hotel. Did not sue Wright before- because he hud not refused payment. He always said ho avoußl pay Avhenevcr rn funds. Wits quite sure he never gave the horse lo Trask, lint would not swear he never leased it to Trask. When he got the reply from the Racing Conference about Die lease he realised then that the previous statement was not true. Did not go to his solicitor about it. Did not do so through ignorance. Mas!) admit that Die right course Avonkl j have been to advise the Magistrate j that a mistake had been made-about* the lease. Thought the Magistrate Avonid have got the information himself. Wrote the tetter to the Magistrate, but could give no reason fur doing it. Thought his judgment avus very hard; didn’t think there avus .any‘harm in writing- tho letter. To Mr Wilford: Witness said he didn’t know he could go to the Mag-

istrate and make a statement about; the case while judgment was pending-

William .bdin Phillips, .farmer, owner of Nobleman, and sleAvurd of the Rangiiikci. and Ecilding Clubs, for many years, said (hat during Dial term he had mn-er seen or heal’d of a.,racing calendar. This closed the case for Die defence.

Id D. AA hihley, recalled, said that, the accused did not say in reply to cross examination by Ougley Dial, il there was a lease it Avonid he registered by the Racing Conference. Mr Wilfonl had just completed lii.s address to the jury when the court adjourned for lunch.