BAILIFF FOR TRIAL

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 658, 9 May 1929, Page 1

BAILIFF FOR TRIAL

FALSE STATEMENT MAKING AN AFFIDAVIT ALLEGED Charged with making a false statement on an affidavit, Julius Barth, a private bailiff, was committed to the Supreme Court for trial after his appearance in the Police Court this morning. Bail was allowed in one surety of £SO. rpHE detailed charge against Bart it was that, on November 28, 1928, being authorised on oath by law to make a statement, he made a statement that would, if made in a judicial proceeding, amount to perjury. The statement, which it is suggested is untrue. reads a 3 follows: “I served the within named William Green and Rose Elizabeth Bamber with a summons, a true copy of which is marked ‘B,’ by delivering the same to them personally at Auckland on Saturday. November 3. This morning Rose Elizabeth Bamber referred to a loan of £8 she had raised with the Commerce Loan and Finance Company. “When the loan was only three weeks old,” she said, “I was two weeks behind with my payments, with the result that I was summonsed for arrears. My chattels were eventually seized and sold.” Witness said that about November 3, Barth had called at her homo in Dominion Road where she lived with her daughter and son-in-law, William Green. He had two copies of a joint summons, one of which he served on her. The other was for William Green, but, hearing that he was in the hospital, Barth had left it with her to deliver. Green was in hospital only one week altogether. William Green remembered going with his mother-in-law to raise the loan. He had never seen Barth In his life and had certainly not been served with a summons by him. James Have Finlay, assistant clerk of the court, and Hyman Zukerman, a law clerk in the employ of Goldstine and O'Donnell, solicitors for the Commercial Loan and Finance Company, gave evidence regarding the swearing of the affidavit by Barth. Mr. Finlay had administered the oath in the presence of the other witness. Detective-Sergeant Kelly produced a statement made by accused. Barth described himself as a private bailiff, and made it clear that he had no connection with the bailiffs at the Magistrate’s Court. He had been engaged in his occupation in Auckland for seven years, and before that he had been in Wellington and Wanganui. He explained that Mrs. Bamber had told him it would be impossible for him to see Mr. Green at the hospital, as only she and her daughter were allowed to visit him. He admitted that he had stated on oath that he had served the summons in person. Mr. F. W. Schramm appeared for Barth and entered a plea of not guilty.