ALLEGED PERJURY

Taranaki Daily News, 22 August 1917, Page 7

ALLEGED PERJURY

ECHO OF WtOHIRST SLANDER CASE. TRIAL OF MRS. SEFTON, At the Snpromo Court, New Plymouth, yesterday, before his Honor Mr. Justice Chapman, May Sefton was put on trial on a charge of having, on May 16 lastj during the case heard before Mj. Justiee Hosking, in which she recovered da-mages from one Lowry Baskin, committed perjury by falsely swearing that she had been only once in a motor car with one Lopdell, whereas in truth and in fact she had been in , the car with Lopdell oa more than one occasion. The accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. A. H. Johnstone. The following jury were empanelled: Messrs A. Alexander (foreman), Louis Olivers, James Außtin, W. H. Huggett, R. H. Old, J. Holmes, junr., Barrett Honeyfield, J. I. Thomson, William Palmer, J. P. Shepherd, L. T. Iloklen. ! W. B. Kivell. I OPENING FOR CROWN. I Mr. H. fi. Billing, in opening the case [ for the Crown, asked the jury to dismiss iif possible from their minds aay impresI sions they might have formed in consetquenco of the publicity given to the previous action for slander, and to coiae to a conclusion solely on the evidence that would be placed before them. At the slander trial Mm. Sefton had stated on oath that she had only been out once with Lopdell in his motor car, and witnesses wotdd be called who would swear that they had seen Mrs. Sefton and I-opdell in the car together on other occasions. Mrs. Sefton obtained a verdict and was awarded damages in the slander case, and the jury might have been influenced in estimating the amount of damages by Mrs. Sefton's statement that she had only once been in the car with Lopdell. The whole question was, had Mrs. Sefton's statement been true? And that question he invited the jury to decide upon the evidence to tie submitted to them. EVIDENCE FOR PROSECUTION. John Terry, deputy registrar of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth, was called and produced ail the paper* in connection with the case Sefton v. Baskin, heard before Mr. Justice Hosking and a jury of twelve on May 16 last. Accused gave evidence at the hearing, but witness could not say whether she was sworn or not.

•James S. Pipe, bailiff and crier in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth, deposed that at the hearing of the case Sefton v. Baskin h e had administered the oath to Mrs. Sefton. He remembered accused sayirg that on one occasion she was walking home to Midhirst 'from Stratford when Lopdell overtook her on the road and picked her up; that they passed her husband on the road, and that Lopdell dropped her at the corner of the road near her residence. Witness thought Mrs. Sefton had stated in her evidence that that was the only occasion on which she had been In the car with Lopdell. To Mr. Johnstone: Could not remember uny of the evidence given by the other witnesses, unless it was brought to liij memory. He had taken special notice of what Mrs. Sefton had said. He could not Kay why. He remembered swearing Mrs. Soft on, because she \va» 'die only lady witness in the case,

A. H. C. Treadwcll, associate uf Mr. Justice Hosking, deposed that he had taken notes of the case Sefton v. Baskin. ■According to these'notes Mrs. Sefton had said that she was walking home M'diii Stratford when Lopdell picked her up. In cross-examination, according to witness' notes, she said she had only once been in the ear with Lopdell. To Mr. Johnstone: Ho was simply reading his notes, and had not the slightest actual -recollection of wnat Mrs. Set! on had said.

Trevor Simpson, newspaper reporter, stated that he was present at the slander trial. He remembered Mrs. Sefton stating in her evidence that the only time she had beer, iu the county motor car with Mr. Lopdell, the county engineer, was on one occasion when -she was walking from Stratford to Mi.lbirst with her small boy. After Lopdell had picked her up they passed her husband "working on the road.

To Mr. Johnstone: Did not remember the evidence of other witnesses. Mrs. Seftou's evidence had been impressed on Ins ramd because he considered it the most important. BASKIN'S EVIDENCE. Lowry Baskin, farmer, Midhirst, deposed that he had laid the information for perjury. He remembered Mrs. Sefstating during the previous case that she had been once in the car with Lopdell. That waß in answer to her own lawyer, and in answer to his lawyer she had repeated the statement, and had added that she had been in the car with Lopdell -'only once." The statement was untrue. He had seen her with Lopdell Jimsclf on three occasions, and neither of them was between Stratford and Midhirst. He had seen them first in Radnor Road about 1 o'clock on a day in the List week in December. Tie second occasion was on the same day. about two hours later, on Denmark' Terrace. The two ron.ds were connected. He was within five or six yards away from them. Ho again saw them on February 2. between Midhirst and VVaiouku. They were in the couiity car." That was about 7 o'clock in the evening. They were going towards Midhirst or Inglewood. Witness was within a few yards of them, the road not being very wide. The car was travelling fairly fast. To Mr. Johnstone: To his' knowledge he bad never seen Mrs. Sefton before the first week in December. He had never on any occasion spoken to her. He had jsei'iUicr seven or eight times since the ! previous ruse. He was a member of I the Stratford County Council and had | made a speech at n. meeting of that body, which was the subject of the slander case. He hed not mentioned name:;.

Mr. Johnstone: You are a cunning man, and were trying to keep out of trouble.

Witness: I had no idea of any trouble at the time I made the speech. Mr. Johnstone: Did you in the slander case make any attempt to prove the statements made in your speech?—No, but I did in the Stratford court.

Was Mrs. Sefton's attention directed to the allegation that she had been in the car more than once with Lopdell?— Ko, I don't think it was. Did you mention in the other case about the occasion at the end of December when Mts. Sefton and Lopdell were

«att to hove been seen together In ft* car ?—No.

DU you say anything nfoout Betoruary I E at the Stratford County Council meet>{ngf—Ho.

Tnatfg aorkau; 70a might naa»«cowi there.—l cannot help that. EM you mention it in tie last trial at the court here?—No, 1 was act asked about it.

Although you knew of three occasions *tm which Mrs. Sefton and Lopdril had 'been seen together in the car you did not mention it?—No; but ? told my solicitor. Did you threaten Mr. Carncross, the Reporter who swore to your speech at the County Coumffl meeting, with a prosecution for .perjury ?—No, I did not do so. I told him his report was not true, but I did not threaten him with proceedings.

Did you tell Mr. Andrews, of the Taraoaki Daily News, that you were going to take proceedings against Mr. Carncross!—No, I did not. WiH you swear that? (Be careful.— Yes, I awear that.

You laid the information yourself in thia caaei—Yes.

You tried to get the police to doso ?-Yes.

You hope to succeed"?—! 'believe in justice.

Have you .been advised that if you succeed in this case you will not have to pay the damages awarded by the jury t—No.

You believe in justice, do you? Have you made any amende to fee woman you slandered?— No.

Why nott—Because what I said at the Stratford County Council was quite true.

Quite true that the woman committed aduitery?—l never said anything about tdultery.

Mr. Johnstone: WeH, the Jury have heard what you did say, and can draw their own conclusions. When asked about the Dr. Paget v. Baskin case in this court last May did you say you only saw two of the jurors?—l cannot say how many I saw. It i s twelve years ago.

Never mind that You said you saw two. Is that true?—l believe I saw two. Did you not see five, and go specially to Eltham to see them?—l saw the DtheTß, but merely to pass the time of day. I did not go to Eltham tc see the jurors, but on other business.

It was because you spoke to the jurors that a. new trial was granted?—l suppose so; but I did not go to Eltham to see the jury at all.

To Mr. BiEing: Mr. Carncross did not report everything I said, and part of his report was incorrect.

MIDHIRST RESIDENTS' EVIDENCE;

George Percy Harknesa, storekeeper at Midhirst, and a Justice of the Peace, deposed that he had seen Mrs. Sefton in the county car with Lopdell They were driving down Denmark terrace. It was about 7 p.m. and the date must have been some time before the end of February. They went towards Tariki. He could not swear that he had seen them In the county car on any other occasion. To Mr. Johnstone: There are three, other storekeepers in Midhirst about the eame distance from where Mrs. Sefton lived. He would not be surprised to hear that he had called a Miss Sefton "Mrs. Sefton." He had been introduced to Mrs. Sefton in Stratford after tho Seftons left Midhirst, '

Re-examined: Previous to the introduction he ha 4 known Mrs. Sefton well by sight.

Frederick Kleeroan, manager of the Midhirst dairy factory, stated that he had seen Mrs. Sefton and Lopdell in the vounty ear passing his place, and also at Waipuku, near the toll-gate. He eould not swear how many times hj« had seen them together, but he would »wear it was not less than four times. He saw them at Waipuku just after last Christmas, about 8 o'clock in the evenlog. To Mr. Johnstone: He had seen them to frequently together that he did not bother his head. The first and second times he saw them at his house as the tar drove by. The third time was between Stratford and Midhirat, and the fourth at Waijjuku. He was continuously on the road, and the four okifioiis ho could swear to were those he bad mentioned.

Theodore Cookson, farmer, Denmark Terrace, stated that between 6.30 and 7 p.m. on February 4 he saw Mrs. Sefton in the county car on York Road. To Mr. Johnstone: There might be a car in Stratford of the same kind "as tne county car.

Horace Frederick Taylor, farmer, Badoor Road, said he had seen Mrs. Sefton aiid Lopdall passing his place iu the county motor car about 1 p.m. on iDecember 6.

To Mr. Johnstone: He bad bean subpoenaed for the Blander trial but had not been called. He had never been in tha county car, but had been close up to it. tto had no particular reason for noting that she passed his place on December C. He had not told Mr. Baskin about it. It might have been talked about in the factory, and so reached Mr. Bmkm s ears. Mrs. Sefton had a black coat on and a brown hat.

George Young, farmer, Radnor Road, had seen Mrs. Sefton and Lopdell passing hu place in the county motor car Rbout 1 p.m. on December 6. The car was going towards the mountain He did nou think he had seen them together %t any other time.

To Mr. Johnstone: He fixed the data because of an order for a hayrack ho had signed on that day, but had made u qUln ? ! ainee to see ** it; was correct Mrs. befton had a brown coat ami a black hat.

Mr. Johnstone: Will you swear it was not on Decembor &?~Yes, I think

Will you swear, after as careful consideration as the liberty of this woman demands, that it was not on December • f~-l.es.

Will you swear that it was on the otn of December?— Yes. I To His Honor: The Stratford Show I was on the 20th and 30th November, and it was exactly a week after the 29tt that he saw Mrs. Sefton and Lopdell in the car. r

To Mr. Billing: The incident had been recalled to him by the previous trial. He had come through to the trial with Mr. Heraeo Young. Miss Delia Keightiey stated that she had seen Mrs. Sefton in the county car some time after 7 o'clock in or about January 30. Witness va* with Mrs. Sefton when she got into the car, Lopdell being already there. Witness did not get into the car.

To Mr. Johnstone: The car, when it started, went towards Denmark terrace! Witness had not mentioned in the lower court that she was standing by becauso she had not been asked. Her brother was engaged to marry Mr. Baskin'a. daughter. James Snooks, butcher's assistant at Midhirst, deposed that; he had seen Mrs. Sefton and Lopdell in the county car. The first time was in Orlando street, i Stratford, last November, about the 15th.

» «m «faMxt dask «a » Vateatday sight Oa tin faßawiag ertrafe? a%M tie taw Mn. Seftc* traUdag post hi* place tewwda Strstfoad.loan «ftw-< w*xb Lopdell «cune up wifli Mi au, ab» got is ud then wani towwdi StMttnd •gai*. Oa a Taariay Bight in February tact k» w» JA his fwn kotne. The train km jiw'm toward* Steatloid, and Mr. and Mm. Sefton were standing on a carriage platform. About 9 o'clock the same night he went to his shop, remaining there for about an hour. On his way home ha stood talking to another man, when Mr. and Mrs. Sefton and Lopdell got out of the car. That would be about 10.30 p.m. He spoke to thesi. They said "Good night," and he called out, "Good night, Davo; good night, Mrs. Sefton." To Mr. Johnstone: He had not made any inquiries on behalf of Mr. Baskin. He had mostly seen Mrs. Sefton wearing a black costume, and he thought she had it on first time he saw Iter with Lopdell. Mr. Johnstone: What was she wearing on the second occasion ?—I think the same as she is now wearing. Mr. Johnstone: Will you swear it? — >Gh, I won't swear to the dress, but I'll swear to the woman. (Laughter). His Honor: If that indecent laughter is repeated I will clear the back of the court. It is most improper in -« court of justfce. Mr. Billing said he had no further evidence to offer for tie Crowa. LEGAL POINTS, Mr. Johnstone submitted to his Honor that there was not sufficient corroborative evidence to justify the case being sent to the jury. It was necessary, according to i the ruJo in each cases, that the statement of one witness must be corroborated by that of another. In the present case a number of witnesses had sworn to some specific occasion, but not one of them had been corroborated by another witness, and this, counsel contended, was essentiaL

His Honor remarked that Taylor and Young had spoken of the same occasion. Mr. Johnstone said that was so, butthey Tiad come in to the trial together in a motor car in order to fix the date. And even if they did corroborate each other, that was only one occasion, and the defence were allowed that.

His Honor said he could only go by the code. The woman h«d said she was only in the car on one occasion. That is alleged to be uirtrue; a number of witnesses had sworn to other occasions. Mr. Johnston*: But their evidence has sot bees corroborated, and if only one witness swore to each occasion it is only oath against oath.

His Honor said that what • was impossible ma'.t be untrue, and if what the Crown witnesses had stated wag true, the prisoner's statement that she had been only once in a car with Lopdell was not possible. It seemed to him not a question of corroborative evidence, but of the independent testimony oi half a dozen witnesses.

Mr. Johnstone: Independent witnesses Whose evidenoe should be corroborated.

His Honor said that would probably be a matter of fair comment to the jury, but he was l not sure it was a question of law. However, if necessary, he would note the point raised by Mr. Johnstone.

Mr. Johnstone said he had another point to mention, though he did not desire to strongly press it, namely, that the prisoner had not had the proper notice of- the allegations against her during the hearing of the previous ease. She had simply given her evidence, and had not been asked anything about th« other occasions on which she was alleged to have been out in the ear with Loddell. e

His Honor said that also was a matter for comment in addressing the jury, and he would have something himself to say about it.

OPENING THE DEFENCE. Mr Johnstone, addressing the jury, I said it had now become his duty to open the case for the defence, but at that stage he did not propose to deal with the facts at any length. It might b<< that the jury were not prepared to convict the prisoner on the evidence ten-* derad by the Crown, but that, of course, Ue did not know. He would call Mrs. St'ton, Mr. Lopdell, Mr. Sefton, and others and would show that on one of lie occasions sworn to by a Crown witness Lopdell's car was laid up, on another Mrs. Sefton was in New Plymouth, and that on various occasions Mr. Lopdell's wife was with him in the car, and probably the lady was mistaken for Mrs. Sefton. He did not say that the Crown witnesses had deliberately told untruths, but submitted that it was probable they had bean honestly mistaken.

ACCUSED'S EVIDENCE May Sefton, the aeausad, stated that her husband had worked for the Stratford Borough Ooanail. On August. IS she went to Woodpile for a holiday for the sake of her health. While she was away, her husband shifted to Midhir3t, and she joined him there when she returned. Her husband was then working for the Stratford County Council, his superior officer being the county engineer, Mr. LopdelL who sometimes came to the house to see her husband. She had only been in the county car with Mr. Lopdell on the occasion she had described at the trial. She had been in New Plymouth on December G. She was certain of the day, for her birthday was I on.December.*, which gha had neat jj

To Mr Sha W «pt I " ll slus went to Micttiwt. After ■ the riwuler trial she and her husband went back from Hew Plymouth to Midhrrstwith Mr. Lopdell in his motor car lhe trial was not discussed. She had not discussed Uw preaant case with Mr. Lopdell. ~hen she gave evidence in the slander case she intended to convey to the jury that she had not been out with Lopdell oh several occasions, but only on one occasion, THE COUNTY CAR. Charles Frances Swain, motor mechanic at Eltbam, deposed that he had repaired Lopdell's car. It had come into his shop on February 2 last, and had remained there for a week. Considerable repairs were Tcquired. To Mr. Billing: An axle .had been bent. The entry in his book showing when the car came in was written in between two other ttems. That might have baen due to one of several reasons. He had not written it in after M*. Lopdell had been to see him. To Mr. Johnstone: His time sheets would also show when he had worked on the car. LOPDELL'S EVIDENCE.

William James Lopdell, engineer to the Stratford County Council, statsd that Sefton had been employed by him, »nd witness had had occasion to call on him, and also on Foreman Brown, who lived in Denmark terrace. He had to go every week to Waiputo, the northern boundary of his district, and in doing so: it was convenient for Mm to go down

Kelly street, whew Sefton Hved, and along Denmark terrace. In going: to Waipuku he had occasionally had ladies in the car—frequently his own wife. On January 29 he and. his wife returned from the Mountain road, wa Denmaw terrace. His car had been in the Eltham garage. Mtb. Sefton had oaly been once in his car prior to Basfeiris speech in the County Council. On December 6 he was out in vhe Toko district. He went oat there to let a contract.

To. Mr. Billing: His pocket diary Would show when he was in the Toko district, and also when he took the car to the Eltham garage. He first became acquainted with Mrs. Sefton'just, prior to the time when Saf ton wsent to Midhirst to work for the Stratford county. He took an interest in the case because he considered a stigma had been cast on his character, and he wanted to dear his good name. Mrs. Sefton haxfo been in a car with him since Mr. Baskin's (speech. A friend of Mb at Stratford had lent him a large ftve-seater car tow come to New Plymouth, and in the car Were Mr. and Mrs. Sefton, Mr?. Lopdell and witness. It was not true that after the trial on May 15 he met Baakin on the courthouse step.-: and used such language, that Baskin had been compelled to caiftj a policeman. It was true that he had, been in the police force about twelve' years, and had left, not because of any woman and himself, but because of troublo that was necessary to vindicate a Woman. The evidence given by Mies Belia Keightlef was untrue,

MRS. LOPDEIiL'S CORKQBORATIO». Mrs. Lopdell corroborated her hatband's evidence as'to her going with bn husband in the motor car on the 29tn and 31st January. On odb occasion the* Went up Kelly street and down Denmark terrace. The car was laid up from December 1 till Tuesday of the fa&Kriaf . (wsek. To Mr. Bitting: She had oot looted M Mr. LopdelPs notes to refresh b«r anin> cry as to dates. She did not know thai she had been out with Mr. LopdirfJ is the car more frequently since BacdcMl speech than before. Naturally, she mm not always with her husband when ht, went out in the car. MB HtJSB£ND»B BrTDEWCE. David Sefton deposed that his wrfc> birthday was December 5. Ob that Aay she went to EHham, and on the (Hh bj train. She took the children with lwe Ho had never been in the county niofcoj car, Watfiam Lane Stock started w» IWwi ber C lart ho was working on the Hofcsgl road in the Toko district, when Lopteft («»-to see him about some other wgrib THB 00083* ADJGBSHEIX This* closed the erifence far #»4i> fence, and after caraaltansr tike Jtafcy at to what-would beet unit their cooragence, his Honor rose at 6JO pjn. (S 9 a.ra. wJua*. fttiTOsatt