RUA PERJURY CASES

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 220, 21 April 1917, Page 2

RUA PERJURY CASES

AN dSXTRAORDINARY AJTAIR

HAMILTON, April 19.

When Mu Limclon. (council for the defence in the charge of perjury against Tioke Hakaipare) had concluded his address to the jury at the Supreme Court this afternoon, Mr Mays,, repre-

senting the Crown, rose and said that counsel for the defence had told the jury, in effect, that two of the constables who had given evidence in the Court had committed perjury in an affiliation case at Auckland, and he was in serious doubt what should be done in the matter. These constables had not been asked one question in the present case relating to that matter, and he thought that he (counsel) should have an opportunity to interview them. In his opinion it was one of the most serious statements ever made to a jury, and Mr Lund on had so abused his position as counsel that it was a question whether it should not form ground for an application for a new trial in the case of an acquittal. Counsel said he also wanted to go into the matter of th e Terawhiti case, also referred to by counsel for the defence, as one of the witnesses concerned, in that case had not been asked one question concerning it.

His Honour said lie hud intended to direct the jury not to consider the whole of the counsel’s address delivered between 10. MO and 12.30 as being wholly beside the case. Mr Mays said lie had been informed that the statement referred to was absolutely and totally a perversion of the facts. In regard to the affiliation case,- his Honour said: Shall I send the jury away until to-morrow morning? Mr Mays: I think I am entitled to it. This is a serious- matter, and serious enough to make application for a new trial.

His Honour: It it were not for the expenses incurred in conncctoin with the case, and the difficulty for witnesses to attend, I should be very much inclined to quash the whole proceed-

ings. Mr Mays: It is a serious thing to ask that a jury be dismissed without a verduct, but, to say the least of it, we arc on the border-line of abuses which would warrant a new' trial. His Honour said it was a most unfortunate thing that counsel for the defence should have allowed himself to be carried away and refer to the matters. ' The witnesses concerned should have been questioned in the matter when in the box, and not allowed to remain under a slur that they had been guilty of perjury. Mr Lundon: I did not say that they had committed perjury.

Mn Mays: You did so in effect. The case was then adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning.