THE Manawatu Times. SATURDAY, JAN.22, 1881. IS IT PERJURY OR NOT?

Manawatu Times, Volume V, Issue 110, 22 January 1881, Page 2

THE Manawatu Times.

SATURDAY, JAN. 22, 1881. IS IT PERJURY OR NOT?

u W»rda»r« things,' »ii.d. a orop of ink falling llkt . , dwtr a£bn a thought, produce* th*t which iwket ' thousands, perhaps millions think." :

Thase whose duty, business, or inclination leads them to attend the various courts of judicature m the colony, cannot fail to be struck with the large—we L f might well say the appalling— amount of false swearing which is continually manifesting itself m our Temples of Justice, The tendency thereto seem'j to be ingrained m onr very nature, for we meet with instances of it m the , earliest records of history, sacred *n.d .'profane. The light m whioh the enormity of the crime was viewed o«n best be gathered from the punishment. Thus weflod m the most highly civilised nations of antiquity the penaltiei with which its oomraission was Tisited were extremely' severe, and m no case more so than m that of the most ancient nation of which we have any authentic records— the Jews. Under the Mosaic dispensation we find that the penalty was death by stoning. To what cause ore we to. attribute the present wid»*

spread preralence of the evil we know not, unless indeed it is to be found m the comparative immunity afforded by modern legislation to its commission. But whatever be the cause, certain it is , that the evil is far more gensral superficial observers, or those who have habituated themselves to draw a rosetinted picture of our common humanity, are apt to imagine. Scarcely a . week passas by without some glarin#insfi£fi»:e of it manifesting itself m one, or other of our courts. A great deal of this arises, it is true, from .thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or ignorance. How many cases are continually arising m which {witnesses flatly contradict each other's testimony on questions of fact— rtnatters about which there ought' to be no mistake. One witness swears that he heard certain words uttered, or saw. certain acts done; on" a particular, occasion. Another witness, who, may also have been present, swears that the words m question were not uttered, or that the acts m question were not done, simply because he neither saw the one, nor heard the other. Such a witness may be strictly conscientious and desirous of. telling the truth, and without wishing by his evidence to give even the least coloring to his version o.f the transaction, and no doubt would be highly indignant if it were alleged that he had not spoken the truth. It would, indeed, be harsh to charge such a person' with perjury,- simply because he had not been sufficiently, careful m framing his an : swers to the questions put to him. But there ia another class of wituesses— and we are sorry to say a very numerous class, too — for whom no such palliating circumstances- exist — persons who do not hesitate to go deliberately into the witness-box fully prepared to swear what they must know, and do know, to be false. The inotiyeg f«r such conduct are not difficult to trace — self-interest, the screening of a friend, or the wreaking of vengeance, on a foe, frequently supplies irresistible- inducements to the '^commission of perjury. Other cases theriirare again, m which the witnesses make statement* on oath directly contradicting the one to the other, and amounting to legal perjury, m which it is impossible to detect the least symptom of motive on tbe part of the false swearer lor committing so grave an offence. A case was heard a few days ago before the Resident Magistrate, m which this latter phase was most notoriously conspicuous. The case was Messrs. Freeman & Wylds v. Cbabtbee, and passing altogether over the evidence of the plaintiffs and defendant, which was flatly contradictory,' on many matters* of fact, we come to tne' evidence of two expert witnesses called, one for tbe plaintiffs and the other for the defendant. The first witness, a man named Donovan, was called on behalf of plaintiffs, and m the -course of his evidence, he swore that he had never used a certain instrument for an expander, nor never heard of it being so used. On the other side Duncan Campbell was produced to prove that it was m common use as an expander, and he supplemented that testimony with the assertion that he had worked with, and seen, Donovan use the tool for the purpose of expanding. Counsel for plaintiff wished to recall Donovan, who would be prepared to swear most .positively that Campbell's assertions oh both points were deliberate misstatements, but the Court would not allow it, and they were consequently uncontradicted. The faotj however, •till remains that either one or other must have sworn to what they knew to be not: true, as the. points at variance were such as could not be attributed to mistake. It is not our place to throw the onusy upon one party or the other, but we will jay that we never saw a witness give, his evidence m a more straightforword manner than . the wav Donovan acquitted himself m the box. It leaned- neither to one side o>* the other, and every question was answered with a careful conscientiousness which bore the impress of truth, carried conviotion with it, and evoked the commendation of the Bench. Here are two men whose sworn evidence — n?on a matter about which it is impossible there could be a mistake— is diamet.'cally opposite, and yet it is impossible to supply a motive t>f sufficient weight to imagine that either would commit flat perjury W« are very -.much afraid— and even the bare supposition is deplorable m the extreme—^hat but a smi.ll portion of the community, a sufficient weight upon the" sanctity of an oath.- Can we •xpect those who use' the solemn expression, " So help my God," upon the ,m?st trivial occasio ts —and very . .often Without thinking whether they are right or wrong— to hesitate m the, Witness box, if they know that their oath cannot becontradicted- We admit that such a supposition is a sad commentary upon the state of morality, but we, are afraid t fcror will despute our correctness. ",. We iljen ;S»y» do away with the farce of kiising the Bible, and committing a . mockery by invoking the : sacred name bf God, and substitute the 'following instead .:--" The evidence I shall give m this cksej shajl be the truth, the whole and. nothing, but the Jruth, and 1 am aware that a. false declaration will make me liable to seven years' imprisonment." "; We imagine that'' bringing this last disagreeable fact strikingly before the mind of a witness ■will arouse ' his sleeping conscience, and be a far greater aid to veracity than kissing the Bible or invoking the name of the Deity.