Hide Articles List

14 articles on this Page

jCORONATION DAY.

MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE.~

<®ar frakit Cflrmprabenf.:

The ROYAL AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY'S…

A TOUCH OF NATURE.

[No title]

THE ACTION AGAINST MR. BRADLAUGH.

WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

BURGLARY WITH VIOLENCE.

SUICIDE OF A STOCK BROKER.

[No title]

--AN AERONAUT CONVICTED OF…

News
Cite
Share

AN AERONAUT CONVICTED OF PERJURY. At the Central Criminal Court, on Saturday, Mr. Joseph Simmons, 49, an aeronaut, was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury alleged to have been com- mitted in evidence given by him in the High Court of Justice in an action brought by him against the Great Northern Railway Company. He pleaded "Not Guilty." r Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., Mr. Besley, and Mr. Cyril Dodd conducted the prosecution on the part of the Great Nortberm Railway Company; Mr. Montagu Williams appeared for the defence. The opening statement of Mr. Digby Seymour and the evidence went to show that the action in which the perjury was alleged to have been committed by the de- fendant was brought by him againstthe-GreatNorthern Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries which he alleged he had sustained in conse- quence of an accident which occurred while he was a passenger in one of the company's trains. On the 29th of December;. 1882, an accident occurred at Edgware owing to the leakage in a pipe connected with the continuous break. The occurrence was not, however, of a very serious nature. The defendant was a passenger in one of the third-class carriages. The passengers were' rather violently shaken, and the defendant sustained a bruise or two and had his coat torn. He walked up. and down the platform after the accident, and seemed, it was said, to treat the whole matter as being: very trivial, observing that he sup- posed the railway company would pay for a new coat. However, on the 3rd of January the company received a communication^ and in consequence a medical man saw the defendant on their behalf. The defendant then complained of having received serious injuries, and of having lost the sense of smell, taste, and memory, but the-medical men and others who saw him failed to observe' anything which would induce them to believe what he' said. The defendant, however, commenced am action against the company, and claimed S3500 as damages for the personal injuries which he alleged he had sustained. The action came on for trial before the Lord Chief Justice in the High Court of Justice.. The defendant gave evidence upon oath in support of his claim and described the injuries he alleged he had sustained. In his particulars he stated that his income was XIIOO per annum, part of which was made up of profits from his profession as an aeronaut, and the remainder in fees forgetting out specifications as to contracts. The defendant was cross-examined with great minuteness, more particu- larly as to two items of X500 and X300 alleged to have been received by him, which statement, it was said, he failed to substantiate, and ultimately admitted that the second amount was still owing. The defendant, in the result, obtained a farthing damages, but was ordered by Lord Coleridge to pay the costs. The case for the prosecution was that the evidence given by the defendant at the trial was false, and that so far from his having sustained the injuries he alleged in consequence of the accident, he had lost his sense of smell some years ago from an operation which was performed upon his nose, and that the other injuries were of long standing. A number of witnesses were called in support of the case for the prosecution, and the shorthand notes of the defendant's examination and cross-examination were put in and read. Dr. Richardson, Dr. Brunton, Dr. Wills, and Dr. Dewsnap were also examined for the purpose of proving that the injuries were of long standing, and that the defendant lost his sense of smell in 1867 in consequence of an operation which was then per- formed upon him. Mr. Montagu Williams addressed the jury for the defence, and argued that the defendant's statements as to his income were not false, as the sums were really due to him, and he submitted that there was no evidence sufficient to justify the jury in finding that the defendant had committed perjury in the other evidence given by him. The Common Serjeant having summed up, the jury found the prisoner guilty on the charge of per- jury. The Common Serjeant remarked that it was seldom that railway companies could bring the per- jury so directly home as in the present case, and sentenced the defendant to two years' imprisonment, with hard labour.

-----------A DULL SEASON.

ltis!tllautDus