PERJURY CHARGE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 31 January 1939, Page 9

PERJURY CHARGE

BANKRUPTCY EXAMINATION. MAGISTRATE DISMISSES CASE. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, January 30. A charge of perjury, brought against Roy Stanley Johnston, a salesman, aged 44, of Wellington, was dismissed by the

Court this morning. The charge was that at Christchurch on September 15 Johnston committed perjury in a judicial proceeding ( when on examination on oath in bankruptcy before the Official Assignee. Mr G. W. Brown, by falsely swearing that £250, paid as a deposit in the purchase of premises at Fendalton, was received from one J. H. Leeming, of Sydney, whereas in truth the money was received from William Anderson, of Dunedin. George William Brown said that when Johnston was on oath at a creditors’ meeting the question as to who had advanced £250 on the Hamiltorl Avenue property arose, accused had been reluctant and had said he would rather not answer the question and when pressed Johnston said the money

came from a man named J. H. Leeming, who was then residing in Australia. On September 16, the day after the examination, Johnston, with his solicitor, J called on witness and Johnston then ■ said he had made a false statement as the money had been received from a man named Anderson, of Dunedin. When asked why he had given a false statement accused said he had not thought the examination regarding Leeming would have been carried so far. Bankrupt had not signed the evidence given on September 15 when he visited witness on September 16. Mr C. S. Thomas, for accused,, submitted that there was no corroboration of perjury at all and quoting from authorities, Mi’ Thomas said even where accused had made two contrary statements on oath this without more was not sufficient to prove perjury. It might be perfectly clear that one of the statements was untrue but it might well be that accused thought each was true at the time he made it. Mr E. C. Levvey, the magistrate, said• he did not think any jury would con-! vict and the case would therefore be dismissed. I