DISTRICT COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IX, Issue 116, 22 April 1885, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

THIS DAY. (Befor His Honour, Judge Hawsoti.) PERJURY. John Morford was arraigned on a charge of perjury. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, and was defended by Mr J, E. Hankins. The following jury were empanuelled: — JURY LIST. Henry Collinson, foreman, A. McDowell, Michael Prendergaat, S. Brown, James Acort, Thomas Baxters, Walter Baker, Edward Turner, Fred Berry, George Walker, R. W. Stallard, John Harris, Robert Gillies, John Haulou, W. L. Luxford. Mr Fitzherbert, Crown Prosecutor, addressed the jury at considerable length. Samuel Baker, Clerk of Court at Foxtoiijguve evidence. I remember an action injwhich Phillip Wooley was plaintiff and John Morford defeiident. The action was for £42 Bs, an amount for wages. I was present when J. Morford gave evidence : I remember a book being produced on which Moiford took oath that all the entry, dated 10th October, was made at the same time. Cross-examined by Mr Hankins. Morford is eccentric; was not present the whole of the trial, did not know witness was deaf. Constable McAnnnlty gave evidence: I am a member of the Police Force; the l>ook produced is the. one belonging to Moiford, m which the" entries are made. Robert Ward, Resident Magistrate of Wanganui District : I remember sitting on the bench m the case before the Court at Foxton, a claim for wages, £42 Bs. Morford produced • a book m whick was the entry. Phillip Wooley came to board with me Oct. 10th at 10s per week. The entry was m different ink. I drew his attention to it, and said I did not credit his statement ; my impression is he modified his original .statement that the ink had run out and he used different ink after. He also said Wooley was present at the time. The defence was he owed plaintiff no uioney, m fnct Wooley owed him for board. 'Judgment was given for Wooley for £17 108 and costs. I have not obsoived him to bo doaf, but I believe him to be very eccentric. As an ordinary witnesß,in this caso there is nothing to show but what the entries may have been made on the same date. After a considerable quantity of evidence had bei.'i) taken. Mr Hankins m defence, laid great stress on the evidence by the prosecution, and quoted from Lord Coleridge and others that a case of perjury must be supported hy two witnesses, and that the testimony of a single witness is not sufficient to warrant a conviction, and challenged any witness to swear on oath that the entries m the book may not have been made at the same time. Mr Fitzherbert replied. Judge Rawson addressed the jury, pointing out that the entries m the book were said to have been made by the defendant m the presence of Wooly, but as there were only the two present at the time it is only a case of oath against oath, and also that there must be two witnesses to convict m a case of perjury. The jury having retired for a short time, returned a verdict of not guilty. The charge of perjury against Charles Better was proceeded with m the afternoon.