ALLEGED PERJURY

Wairarapa Times-Age, 6 May 1938, Page 8

ALLEGED PERJURY

PROSECUTION OF LABOURER IN CHRISTCHURCH. ADMISSIONS BY WITNESS. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. Two charges of subordination to perjury were brought against Anthony George Bouterey, a labourer, aged 37, in the Magistrate’s Court this morning. The police evidence was to the effect that Bouterey prevailed on two witnesses to give false evidence in the Supreme Court, during ah application made by Bouterey for a divorce. The charges set out that Bouterey counselled or procured Cyril Wilfred Stanley and Douglas William Dyer to commit perjury, the nature of the perjury being that the two men mentioned said they saw Mrs Bouterey commit adultery with Peter Alexander Munro on a launch at Napier, whereas in truth and fact neither man was in Napier on the days in question or any other date, and they did not see Mrs Bouterey commit adultery with Munro or anyone else. Bouterey was not represented by counsel. Evidence was given that a decree nisi was granted in the Supreme Court in favour of Bouterey against Mrs Bouterey, but not against the co-respondent, Munro. Dyer gave evidence of Bouterey telling him the nature of the, evidence which would be given at the divorce proceedings by another man, Richardson, and suggesting that Dyer should give similar evidence. “I told him I had never been in Napier.” said Dyer. “Bouterey said he would take Stanley and lup there. He was going to give us a general idea of how the wharves in the harbour were situated.” Bouterey promised Dyer and Stanley £5 each if he got a divorce, added Dyer. Dyer said Bouterey drew a sketch of the wharves at Napier for his guidance. A few days before the divorce proceedings he purchased a 1935 diary in which it was intended that Stanley should write notes purporting to relate to happenings on the launch that night. Stanley said he would not make notes in the diary, but finally, after persuasion by Bouterey, agreed to give evidence. Later Stanley again said he would not give evidence and that if he did he would tell the truth. Bouterey remarked that Stanley would be liable for perjury if he did not give evidence. Then it was decided that all of them would give evidence as agreed upon. The evidence given in the Supreme Court was completely false. Proceeding-