Supreme Court of New South Wales

Trial, 30 May 1827

Source: Australian, 1 June 1827

George White was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.

Mr. W. Love examined, I am acting principal clerk in the police office at Sydney, I remember the prisoner giving evidence in a case against one Chas. Rowley.  What he stated on his examination in that case, was embodied in an affidavit, the one produced, to which the prisoner subscribed his name; the signature of Francis Rossi, J.P. superintendent of police, to the jurat, was his hand writing.  The document was read over to the prisoner by me.  I enquired of him at the same time whether he was sworn to which he must have answered in the affirmative.  Swears the affidavit is the tenor of what the prisoner stated; believes the prisoner was regularly sworn to the document.

Cross-examined by Doctor Wardell - Thinks it impossible the prisoner could have signed it without being sworn.  Does not recollect of any person making a deposition at the police office without being sworn to it.  Does not remember the case of one Darbyshire, who gave evidence in a prosecution and was not sworn.  It is not the practice for witness to swear persons to the depositions they make; but he invariably asks, after reading to them their depositions, if they have been sworn; and believes, from such practice, that the prisoner was duly sworn in the ordinary way.  Conscientiously considers that in 99 cases out of a 100, he makes it a point to ask every person if he has been sworn to the contents of which he subscribes his name.

Matthews, a constable in the Sydney Police Department - Some time in the evening of the 10th or 11th of April last, I received information of the house of one White, the prisoner before the Court, being broken into and robbed - I went to the house in question, and found the back door open - the door appeared to have been forced - the staple was drawn and the lock wrenched off - a person of the name of Moss undertook to take care of the house, until the return of the prisoner - there was no person in the house at the time - I saw the prisoner next morning, when he complained to me of his house having been robbed on the previous evening, and his watch stolen - he presented me with a paper, at the same time, containing the maker's name of the watch and number - and gave a further description, by stating that there was a scratch on the dial plate of the watch, between the figures of 6 and 7, and a letter imperfectly made - the watch now produced, I got from the prisoner, at the Police Office, when I gave my deposition before the Magistrates against one Charles Rowley - I was sent for by the prisoner to take in charge a man called Jennings, whom he accused of having had the stolen watch in his possession - prisoner said the watch he gave into my charge, was the watch that had been stolen from him.

Cross-examined. - Jennings, the person alluded to by witness, was present when this charge was given him.  He did not deny having possession of the watch.  Jennings made a confession of this fact before magistrates; upon that confession one Charge (sic) Rowley was apprehended, on a charge of stealing the watch.

Patrick Flood, a constable, deposed to the same effect of the last evidence.

Mr. W.H. Moore, His Majesty's acting Attorney-general. - On the ninth day of May last, Charles Rowley was indicted for a burglary and robbery on the premises of Geo. White, the prisoner before the court.  The latter was called by me as the principal evidence in that case.  He stated on his examination before this court, that on the night that the robbery of which the prisoner stood charged had taken place, he returned home at a late honr (sic) of night, and found some person in his house, but did not know whether it had been forced open or not; he did not know whether his watch had been stolen or not, as his wife, whom he had left at home on going out, might probably have taken it, and that he did not miss the watch until next morning, and was unable to swear to the identity of the watch, for he had never had it in his hand beyond ten or twelve times, and would not swear to it then, and denied having made any statement at the Police-office, in writing, respecting the robbery.

A deposition was put in, signed in the prisoner's name, and sworn before Francis Rossi, Principal Superintendant of Police, which went to shew, that the prisoner had deposed to his house having been forcibly broken into, and robbed of a silver watch, which he afterwards saw in the possession of a man named Jennings, and that previous to the finding of such watch after the robbery, he had described to some of the constables the watch in question, and was certain to its identity at the Police-office.

The case for the prosecution closed here.