he may not speak the truth on some other point; the point which he may falsely have nothing to do with the real facts of the case, and there is no rule which states that because a witness may have sworn falsely on one point the whole of the other evidence is to be rejected.
Any decision of the Magistrate may be certainly revised on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Magistrate should carefully consider whether those parts of the evidence as to which perjury is alleged are material; whether the witness may not be speaking the truth as to what occurred in the case, even if he is speaking falsely about something that happened years before.
Is there anything which directly contradicts the material parts of his evidence, and is this contradiction supported by two witnesses? If the Magistrate is convinced that the witness is not speaking the truth on that point, he should consider whether that is sufficient to overthrow the evidence of the other witnesses against whom a charge of perjury is alleged.
There is no law that says that because a witness has sworn falsely on one point, you are to reject the evidence of that witness because they have sworn falsely on another point.
I submit that the Magistrate be informed that his decision...