Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 7168x9728 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

PERJURY.
Maria Court on Thursday, Henry and
charff ,aPPearedon Bummons to answer a
Court ,Tng committed perjury in the County
jjje 5 11!1 cae of Ward and wife v. Russell,
for tin, egG PerJurJ arose out of an action
fooce Daes or assault, during which the de-
defend J!!! tllafc fclie marks on the female
Were caused by an assault committed
aer husband, and not by Russell, the
then defendant. Ward then swore that he had
ated or beaten his wife, and she swore
that he had never" assaulted her. Evidence was
now called, and numerous witnesses swore that
hey had seen Ward beat his wife, and that she
complained of having been beaten, kicked,
and thumped by her husband, and that she was
marked all over by the treatment she 'had re
ceived. For the defence, evidence was called to
prove that at the County Court, although the
same witnesses were examined, none of
them said they had seen an assault ; but
£ keard Mrs. Ward complain that she
had been assaulted by her husband. Russell then
Partly admitted the assault, but denied having
kicked Mrs. Ward. He said he only pushed her
with his foot, and that the bruises ou her were
crfd by her husband. The Bench, after hearing
ail the evidence, said that a great deal had been
imported into the case which was irrelevant. The
question was, whether Ward had ever beaten hiw
wue, and they had the evidence of the witnesses
Goold, who swore they had seen Ward beat his
wife, and therefore they thought the case was one
for a jury. The prisoners were committed for
trial, bail being allowed in two sureties'of £25
each, or one of £50.
$