ALLEGED PERJURY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2208, 27 November 1920, Page 2

ALLEGED PERJURY.

THE SECOND TRIAL. EA STON A CQEITTET). The second trial of Frederick Spencer Easton, of Foxlon' on charges of iierjury, commenced at the Wanganui Supreme Court on Thursday, before Justice Sir Bassett fidwards. The accused was previously tried at Palmerston North. The accused was indicted on live charges arising out of a civil action, Easton v. Wright, in which Easton claimed £2OO on a dishonoured cheque given in payment for (Jie racehorse Stevens. As the result of Easton’s evidence in the case, heal'd at Foxtail, the presiding Magistrate, Mr J. L. Stout, S.AL, ordered his prosecution for perjury. The charges.. against the accused were that lie had wrongfully alleged:— (I ) Thai: lie had never taken the horse Stevens hack from Alfred Mitchell Wright after having sold it to him. (2) That the horse was never on his property after the transaction. (3) That he had not leased the horse to anyone after (he *;ale to Wright. (•!) That he had not leased (he horse to William George Trask afler the sale to Wright. (5) That he had not subsequently given the horse to Trask. Mr C. C. Hutton conducted the ease for the Crown, and Mr T, M. Wilford appeared on hehalf of the accused. In opening the ease for Ihe Crown, Air Hutton said fortunately such charges w.ere rare in New Zealand. Accused was a wealthy man residing at Eo.xton, a wellknown racehorse owner, and was perhaps-best known as I he owner of the racehorse Amythas. The Crown would call witnesses to prove that Easton had sold the horse Stevens, to Wright in 1911, and that when Wright had been disquatilied 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 bad subsequently leased il to a trainer called Trask, to whom Easton bad given Stevens when tho horse had broken down. The perjury alleged consisted in denying, under cross-examination, that he had taken Stevens hack from Wrigh(; that he had leased him lo Trask, or that the horse had over been back on his .place at- Alouloa after he had been sold to "Wright. Evidence would be called to prove the registration of the lease from Easton to Trask with the Racing Conference, and its publication in the New Zealand Referee, the official organ of the Racing Conference, and the Racing Calendar. A notification of Ihe subsequent gift of SI evens to Trask appeared in The Sporting and .Dramatic Review.

CLERK OF COURT'S EVIDENCE

Frederick Woods, police constable and clerk of the Court-nt Eoxton during the bearing of the ease, gave evidence similar lo that given at the former bcaring.

To Mr Wilford: He was mil on l(‘rms with accused. • Arthur Montague Ongley,’ solicitor, .John Logan Stout, Siipcndiary Magistrate, and Wright's evidence was similar to that given at the previous hearing. TRASK'S EVIDENCE. •

William Ceorge Trask, stud groom. Levin, said in 1913 ho was training a horse called Lady Mnulua Tor Easton, lie knew Wright’ and tin; horse Stevens. He leased Stevens .from Easton, and got possession from Wright, who was ‘“hacking” the horse about. This was about the end of January, 1913. At that time Wright was disqualilied and paddocking llax for Easton. Witness paid £ls to Wright for the feeding of the horse. Subsequently witness gave the receipt to Easton, who said they would burn it, because if the racing authorities got hold of it they woulc, iret into (rouble. Subsequently a lease was drawn up and signed. Easton allowed him Wright's cheque for £2OO, and said he hoped he would have bet lei’ luck with him. The registration appeared in the Referee. Witness raced Stevens at Otaki, but he was unplaced. Lady Moufoa won the. Cup the same day. Witness’ name appeared on the ‘“correct, card ” as the owner of Stevens, The horse also ran at other meetings in witness’ name. Subsequently, owing to an accident to the horse, witness received permission to graze the horse in Easton’s paddock. Einally witness suggested accjised should make him a present of the horse. Accused pulled out his watch and said'. “It's live minutes past twelve, Hill, and after this he is yours.” This was in March, 3915. Later reference to the present was made in the Sporting Review. The arrangement with the lease was to pay Easton 15 or 20 per cent, of the Avinnings.

To Mr Wilford: Ho tvas not bad friends with Easton. He was never dismissed by accused. Ho was sure Unit between 1913 and 1915 he did not make out a-list of his assets and debts. He denied that lie raced Stevens as a dummy for Wright. He paid £ls for the condition that the horse was in. He admitted that he assaulted Easton on the Marlon racecourse.

Evidence was given by F, H. Whiblcy, reporter, “Manawatu Herald,” in 'regard to the case in the Magistrate's Court.

To Mr Wilford; He wa> not on speaking terms with Easton. Ho had a court case with accused 16 or 17 years ago over shooting pukeko on accused’s property, and won it.

Frederick Robinson, horse dealer, Fokton, said that after Wright's disqualification he saw the horse Stevens in the cemetery paddock be-

tween September and October in 1912.

Evidence by three Christ church in , stniction of old documents belonging to the Racing Conference was put in and road. ' THE END OK STEVENS. ' Thomas Procter said he had been lent Stevens by Trask, and that he had died in a swamp of a broken neck or broken hack. William D’Ath, secretary of (he Ofaki Racing Club, gave evidence that Stevens had been raced in Trask’s name. George Walls, ex-jockey, said (hal he had visited the yvoolshed paddock on Hie Mouloa Estate on several occasions, and had seen Stevens there. Frank T. Williams said he had worked' for Easton in 1913. He had seen Stevens running in the woolshed paddock at Mouloa. Tbi- closed the ease for the Crown. THE DEFENCE. Air Wilford said (hal his defence would be that the facts were as .-fated, that Easlon had never taken the horse back from Wright; that he did not recollect any lease lo Trask, and would make the same statement on oath'that he had made at (he civil court. Easton also denied (hal he had given the horse to Trask. Evidence from R. S. Abraham, Palmerston North, was read, stating dial he had always found Easton a strictly honourable man. Arthur W, Ward, Palmerston N., said accused was not'highly educated, hut,-he had always found him ■ straightforward and honourable. J. Johnston, secretary of the Manawatu Racing Club, said bad the reputation of being a thoroughly honourable man. He had known him 20 years. A PLOWED’TO GO HOME. Mr Wilford asked that accused should he allowed to go home, and lie would bring him back in the morning. * Air Hutton said that he had been instruct yd to oppose bail for die reason that he feared that: directly or indirectly be might lake steps dial might not lie conducive to the inleregts of justice. His Honour granted Air Wilford"s request, and accused was allowed 1 to return home. The bearing was continued at the Supreme Court yesterday morning, before Justice Sir Bassett Edwards and a jury. James Petrie Tunes, hamster and solicitor, of Palmerston North, said defendant was asked by M't'y* Ongley whether or not lie had taken 1 the horse back from Wright, and Easlon said he had not, No single question was asked as to wild her or not Easton had taken the horse hack from Trask, Air Ongley asked accused if he did nol afler Wright's disqualification lease (he horse to Trask. A ('eased replied that be did nof, and if he did it would be registered by the Racing Conference. Witness bad no idea (hat Easlon laid wired to the Racing Conference, on the matter.

Hy Mr Hutton; There were about half a dozen people in Court during the hearing of the ease. Witness’ reeolleelion of the question asked accused by Mr Ongley was: Did you ever take the horse back from Wright?, Witness remembered Ongley asking Easton if the horse was ever on Ids (Easton's) proporey after the sale to Wright. Did not Mr Ongley ask Easton if he had leased the horse to anyone ? —Easton’s answer was no. ,• To Mr Wilford: After Trask and Wright had given evidence in the ease, wilness’had asked leave to recall Easton, but was refused the right. Vincent Hruce Wilbers, station band, said he had been working for Easton for 13 years, and had kept a. diary ever since. Witness produced his diaries for the ’ years 1911, J 1)12, and 1,1)13. Witness made a practice of entering up bis diary at the (dose of each day. What was known as the “cemetery paddock” on Easton's estate was af-o known as “Jim Symons’ farm,” as the latter included the former. If Robinson had sAvorn that the'horse Stevens w/u* grazing on Jim Symons’ farm from 201 li September, 191.2, to end of October. 11)12, that would tioL be correct. Witness had made an entry in his diary that he had ,-own the cemetery paddock with grass seed on the 2!)th and 30lh of August, JIH2. That paddock would not he ready lo graze a horse tor three numlhs afier those dales. Hy Mr Hut ton; Witness would swear (hat he never suav the horse Stevens grazing in any of the paddocks of Jim Symons’ farm in September, HH2, the paddocks had not been ploughed, and it Avas possible for a horse to be grazing in one of them a t the period mentioned. Adjoining the paddock Avhich witness had sown in 1012 was another paddock separated by a dividing fence, which was not there now. Witness did not see the horse there in September, 1912, but he Avon Id nut contradict Robinson if ter said be had seen it there oiu occasions. To Mr Wilford: The oilier paddock adjoining the cemetery paddock was leased by Easton up to the end of 19.13 to three separate tenants in succession, and these tenants grazed stock in them. Hy Mr Hutton: It avus possible fur the horse Stevens to have been grazing on this paddock on September, 1912. THE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED. Frederick Spencer Easton, the accused, said be avus plaintiff*in an action at Foston in Avhich lie sued for £2OO, being the 'amount of a cheque issued by Wright, AVitness

sold a horse mimed Steven- to Wright for £2OO, for .which Wrigb!; gave witness a cheque. From 17th March, 1011, to the present time witness had never had a penny of this £2OO. The horse while witness was holding Wright's cheque won a •considerable amount of prize money. The winnings amounted to more than witness sold the horse for. After witness gave Wright possession of the horse, life latter raced if. until Wright was disqualified. In 1012 and 1013 witness had leased a portion of his properly to-dairymen, the cemetery paddock being the remaining portion. From the lime witness sold the horse to the present lime it was never hack on his property from Wright, but it had been hack on his place in the woolshed paddock spelling from Trask. Witness had never at the previous hearing of the ..case been asked if ho

had. ever had the home buck from Trask. He believed the questions had all referred to tho horse coming hack to him from Wright. Witness had never made Trask a present of the horse. Trask asked witness one day if he might spell the horse on the woolshed paddoekyand witness

consented. At (hat time Trask was

fitness’ trainer. After ‘Wright had 1 been disqualified he could not race Stevens, hut Trask could have done so, as the latter was a registered trainer. In order to do this, Trask would require some document Cronj 'Wright. After Wright’s disqualification, the latter had Avorked on witness’ property for his brother at a flaxmill. Witness had never told Wright he had holier take Stevens and ride him to work. Witness had asked 'Wright for payment before and after the latter’s disqualification. The first occasion was on tlnl Eoxton racecourse after Wright had won some stake money. Wright then said he was short of funds, and witness gave him more time. At a later date he had seen Wright at Whyte’s Hotel, Eoxton, and asked him for payment. Witness had heard "Wright at the hearing of the ease, at Palmerston North swear (hat he (witness) had never asked for payment at White’s Hotel at Eoxton. The Crown Prosecutor objected that counsel for the defence was himself giving evidence hy asking leading questions. His Honour upheld the objection. Continuing his evidence, the accused said he had later written to "Wright, but received no reply. He again wrote, hut without eliciting an answer. Witness still swore that he bad never taken the horse hack from Wright, nor had lie ever received the horse back on his properly after the sale to WT-ight. He had never madca prese.nl of the horse to Trask. Witness had never signed a lease to Trask - , giving him a right to the horse. Witness had never drawn up such a lease. Witness on 17th September, 1020, had telegraphed to the secretary of the Racing Conference concerning the alleged lease to Trask. There was no threat of perjury at the time of the. hearing of the ease at Eoxton. Witness had no recollection of any document between himself 'and Trask. Witness had been working since he was 14 years of age, and his business bad assumed fairly large proportions, lie had always conducted bis own affairs unlit -lime last, when lie had. handed over control of portion oi. las affairs to a solicitor. Witness had had a severe attack of influenza, and had been confined to bis bod for about six weeks. This illness had affected his memory. His Honour at this stage remarked that witness was not giving any evidence. In matters which affected him so closely, evidence to he of any weight should come from himself.

Air Wilford: Perhaps I am hurrying him a little, your Honour. Proceeding, witness said the Dank had kept his accounts. Witness had not had much education, and was not much of a penman. Witness did not write to the Magistrate after the ease, but was responsible tor the letter. A Mr Howie, one of witness’ managers, had written the letter at witness’ direction. He had never received any percentage of the winnings made by the horse Stevens from ■Trask. After witness had discharged Trask there had been trouble between them at Alarton, and Trask had been lined £2O tor assault. Witness had never seen the advert Dement in the Deforce selling forth I tic lease of the horse from Easton to Trask. Witness had .-eon »n official Pacing Calendar for the first time at the Palmerston North Supreme Court. Dv (he Crown Prosecutor; While Trask had been in witness' employ Uiev had occasionally had a few words. He suggested that Trask’s story was a sheer invention. He had never given Trask the horse, and laid-never leased the horse to i rash or anvbody else. Trask told witness that he had got the horse from Wright, and had paid Wright £ls for him. Witness may shown Trask the cheque from Wright fur £2OO. The reason witness had neva~ asked how Trask came to get the horse was because' he always look- ‘ cd upon Wright as the owner. To His Honour: He had never signed or handled a form of registration. and if such a form had been sent in' to the Racing Confer-

cnee it must have been a forgery. Continuing under cross-examina-tion after the luncheon adjournment, the accused reiterated that Trask’s story was a fabrication from beginning to end, as the horse was not his (witness’) to give away. Trask’s story about the lease was also a fabrication. Wright’s statement thatjre asked witness if ho would lease the horse to Trask was likewise untrue.* To the V».;st of his belief he had never signed the form of lease, Before lie would admit

anything about the lease he would want to see the document.

The Crown Prosecutor remarked that witness'knew he was perfectly safe in making this statement, as the document had been destroyed. Do you thin!: that your own servant would commit such a fraud upon yon?

His Honour pointed out that the document jvas a perfectly good bailment under common law. The question Iho jury had io consider was; Did Wright give up I he horse to accused in consideration of the debt, and did the present witness hand the horse over to Trask ? By Mr Hutton: Witness trusted that Wright would always pay him fur llte hotse. He had offered to take the horse hack from Wright in Whyte's Hotel at Foxlou, and caned the £2OO debt. Wlight had no money to pay.

Can you tell me why yon never made that statement in Palmerston- —Perha.ps.it was never pul. to me us you are pulling it now. f was never asked the question. Why was Wright not asked the question at Palmerston? Is not this quite an afterthougk on your part? —No; T stated tins from the very first. I have nothing to conceal concerning the dealings over this horse. T acted all along in a kindly way to help, and this is (he, way I have been treated. By the Crown Prosecutor: Witness had had considerable experience of Court proceedings, but there was nothing he was ashamed of, considering (he battle he had had against certain cliques.

Mr Hatton: You had an action against N. Martin, in which you had him arrested for assault. He subsequently claimed £2OO from you for wrongful arrest, and succeeded in his action, did he not

Yes; hut tho ease is not finished vet.

Mr Hutton: Yon are still vindictive against the man? —No; but there are others concerned. Mr Hut ton; Then yon had actions against your two brothers, and Mr Whihley?—Yes, hut what has this got to do with my case? Mr Wilford: You must answer the questions put to you. just like any other witness.

■Containing, accused said that his memory was bad, ami he could mil remember what the litigation with ids brothers had been about. Tie could not remember being at the Wellington and Christchurch race meetings in 1.913, when Stevens was running. He had seen race cards an which Trask’s name appeared as the owner of Stevens. Mil ness had never been before the Raiigitikei Racing Chib for corrupt practices in connection with a horse named Rimu, and had never been before that eluh in connection with Rimu. The stories told hy V.’right and Trask were quite false. All of the witnesses, liar two or three, who bad given evidence in the case, were prejudiced against him. Constable Woods had persecuted witness and bounded him down for IB years.

Mr Hutton; You suggest that you are an Isbmaelite in Eoxton, Mr Easton.’ All these people are out to down you and tell lies about you? —-Absolutely.

Proceeding, whites- admitted that be could be described as a wealthy man, who had bad to do with farming (laxmiliitig, it ml horse racing. Without a diary be bad bad to carry the detail- of all these businesses 'n his head.

Tin* Crown Prosei-utdr: 1 congratulate you. It was a marvellous acr formancc.

Witness stated tlmt he haul had five or six racehorses training at the one time. Witness unfortunately had not a wonderful knowledge of racing form, nor had he had wonderful success in helling transactions.

The evidence of Dr. Ala mil.. taken in the ease at Palmerston North, was pul in with the eqnseul of the Crown Prosecutor.

Robinson, re-called, stated that in September, and October, 1912, ho was doing veterinary work, and attended a cow belonging to Mrs Duggan, at the corner of Cemetery Road and the by-road. He saw the horse Stevens in what he knew as the Cemetery paddock. There were three horses in the paddock a-, well as a number of cows. This paddock adjoined the one referred to by Wilbers.

Counsel then addressed the jury, HIS HONOUR SUMS UP. His Honour, in summing up, reviewed the evidence at length. Assuming that the prisoner did >ign the lease, I be conduct of Wright and Trask was quite consistent witli their story. The prisoner," however, deelaTcd that he had never signed the lease. If he had not done so, then Trask must have committed forgery; or here entered into a conspiracy with someone to sign tho lease. This did not appear likely in view of the fact that Trask knew that the lease would he immediately published in the Weekly Press, one of the most largely circulated pap-* ers in the Dominion. The whole story of Wright and Trask was consistent. The real ease was whether prisoner made an .unjustified, claim upon Wright and supported it by false evidence. NOT GUILTY.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at (I*s p.m., and returned at 7.45 o'clock with a verdict of not guilty. Accused was discharged.