IS HE INNOCENT?

NZ Truth, Issue 128, 30 November 1907, Page 5

IS HE INNOCENT?

THE CASE OF OIIPHANT HUGHES.

Convicted and Sentenced for Perjury.

A Matter for Further Investigation.

People m. Wanganui are averring with much emphasis tkat the local gaol is sheltering an innocent man who is -•-dergomg a sentence of 18 months' imr v isonment on a charge of perjury. The alleged innocent man is one' Oliphant Hughes. He was a sharebroker or something of that 'sort, and the alleged perjury arose out of a sworn statement that his signature was not attached to a document m connection with some deal m the Southern Cross Biscuit Company. Hughes, it appears, gave evidence m some civil case concerning his signature, and the result was his subsequent

CONVICTION FOR PERJURY, ending m him being sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. All along Hughes • loudly protested his innocence. There was, ami always has been, a doubt connected * with his guilt, and though the jury convicted him, the Judge who sentenced him had no fault to find with that verdict. Judges and juries are apt to err, and though there has never been any agitation for Hughes's release, or for a re-opening of his case, it would appear from what the "Wanganui Chronicle" has had to say on the matter that the friends of Hughes have been working quietly and with good 'purpose. In a letter to that paper one of Hughes's friends says:—

A written opinion as to the genuineness of the two photographed signatures m /the famous Hughes case has just been received from a London expert. Am sending you a type-written copy. One more proof that undoubtedly an innocent man is undergoing a sentence of eighteen months for perjury m our Wanganui gaol.

The proof rests, apparently, m the London expert's opinion, which is as follows :—

"For considerably more than 30 years I have been engaged by Withe.rby and Co., law stationers, etc., of Newmans Court, Cornhill, J3.C., 326 High Holborn, and Middle Row Place, W.C., as draughtsman. During the last fifteen years I have held the position with them of chief draughtsman and illuminator. Throughout the whole period I have had large experience m collating and comparing handwriting, m executing facsimile copies ol written documents, and especially . making fac simile copies of signatures on illuminated congratulatory addresses, etc. I have compared the signature "Oliuhant Hughes" as it appears on the photograph of part of a document dated the 4th November, 1901, with the like signature on the photograph of part of a document dated the 20th February, 1905. For brevity's sake 1 1 refer to them as the "earlier" and j v 'the later" signature. I am decided- | ly of opinion that THEY ARE NOT THE HAND- . WRITING I ol the same person. Too much stress might easily be placed upon small differences, as many men make no effort to adopt a hard and fast type of signature, and letters and spaces vary with circumstances. Of more importance is the general character, arid m this respect the signatures differ greatly. The earlier is written with a free ' hand ; the latter was written more slowly— was drawn rather ' than written, as the broken and shaky curves at the bottom / of "1" and "H" show. In the earlier the letters are simple and denuded of ornament ; m the later they are more complex m form. In the earlier the bottom curves are angular and definite ; m the later they are rounded, inclined to sprawl, and broken. The "t" m "Oliphant" has changed from the simpler stroke "t" to the more complex hooked, crossed "t." In like manner the "s" m Hughes has developed from the simplest form possible to the elaborate "s." The same features of change from the simplest to the complex appear m the Initial "H-" In, the earlier, the form is reduced to ike barest outline, and is joined without jv break to the letters that follow it-^hy itself it could hardly be recognised as an "H" ; the writer was content to let the whole word speak for itself. A tittle more than three years later, he (on the hypothesis of senuiness) reverts to the schoolboy's copybook style, 'omits no feature of ornamentation, and entirely detaches the initial, from the letters that follow it. This is an incredible supposition. There might he a tendency, even m. a man of mature age, to move

TOWARDS A SIMPLER STYLE and to become careless of. detail m his signature, but he would be extremely unlikely to revert to the slower, more correct, and more elaborate form adopted by the writer of the later signature. Whatever variations might be made m two authentic signatures by one man, they would be more likely to appear m the body of the names and m the less important letters. The initials would almost certainly (whatever their differences) conform to a common type. But. the differences between the initials and the earlier and the later signatures are most marked, as , the following sketch shows— (here follows sketch). Here the type of letters and the characteristics of penmanship, are widely divergent, and, having regard to the nearness of the respective datQS of the documents, are al r most impossible as the work of one hand, m .such well-defined and stereotyped outlines as a man's own initials.—WTLl.lAM J. EATER, 4 Newmans Court, Corn-hill, E.G. September 25th, 1907."

Commenting on this matter the /•Chronicle" says :—

"This Mr Eater, it will be noticed, is particularly emphatic m the opinion at which he has arrived, and it must be admitted that he supports his contention with sound argument, b?ise f l on a careful analysis of the letters forming the signature. He has cvidentlr taWn n irood doa\ of trouble over Hs work, and tlv result of his examination must, of course, Ue

gratifying to those to whom his re^ port is addressed. The report should, we think, be submitted to the Minister .of Justice, with a request that the Crown Law Officers should bo asked to report as to whether or not it affords sufficient justification for

RE-OP ENINa THE CASE. If the man was wrongly convicted, lie is suffering a terrible wrong, which can never be righted ; but it his friends have evidence sufficient to warrant the re-opening of the case they should act promptly m order that his incarceration may be terminated as speedily as possible. Either that, or the justice of the the man's conviction should be placed beyond doubt. To our mind the opinion of this London expert is worthy of some attention, not necessarily on the assumption that it demonstrates that Hughes did not wri+e the' incriminating signature ; but because it lends some color to the suggestion that the man is morally guilty of the offence, for which he was convicted. It is an established fact that Hughes has been subject to epileptic attacks, and it may be that he did sign the document at" a time when one of these attacks were pending, m which case it is possible that his writing would not correspond with his usual style and that he would have no recollection of the transaction. Under these circumstances, he would be morally, indeed lesrally, innocent of perjury m swearing that the signature was not his andi that he did not sign the document."