GAOL FOR BAILIFF

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 732, 3 August 1929, Page 11

GAOL FOR BAILIFF

clumsy story brings DOUBLE SENTENCE FALSE AFFIDAVIT MADE •Had you not acted as you did; in defending the case, I would have given you three months, but seeing you were not ashamed in an effort to save yourself—and a clumsy effort it was —to charge two witnesses with perjury, ! am going to double the sentence/’ Julius Barth, aged 43, a private bailiff, listened to Mr. Justice Ostler utter these words in the Supreme Court this morning, when sentenced to six months’ hard labour for making on oath a false statement which, if made in a judicial proceeding would have been perjury. Barth stood his trial before Mr. Justice Ostler yesterday, and was convicted of swearing an affidavit that he had served a summons on a man, whereas he had not done so. The evidence of Mrs. Rose Elizabeth Bamber showed that Barth had called at her home to serve summonses upon her son-in-law. Accused handed her one paper, and when informed that her son-in-law was in hospital, handed her the second document to pass on. AVHliam Green, tho son-in-law, who was in hospital, stated he refused to accept service of the summons from Mrs. Bamber. He knew that it was not legally served unless the bailiff handed it directly to him. In the box Barth admitted that he had not served the summons personally, stating that Mrs. Bamber had undertaken to deliver the document. SENTENCE PASSED When Barth appeared for sentence this morning, Mr. Schramm stated that prisoner’s wife was a confirmed invalid and was under medical treatment. Prisoner was a foreigner, and evidently thought ho knew something about service of summonses, and acted under the belief that, if the woman would hand on the summons as arranged it would be satisfactory. Counsel appealed to his Honour not to imprison Barth, as there would be no one to attend to the requirements of his invalid wife. Commenting that the offence was very serious, his Honour said that probation was out of the question, as Bartli had a previous record, one of which involved dishonesty. It was clear, the judge said, that Barth’s motive was the lazy one, of saving himself the trouble of soing to the hospital to serve the summons. “You drew tho pay and fraudulently stated that you had done tho work,” concluded tho judge.