 The third count for the perjury charge was with regard to the conflicting statement of the appellant that he had nothing to do with the first shipments of cement, whereas Exhibit ‘R’ proved otherwise.Exhibit ‘R’ is a letter dated 16 October 1956 wherein the appellant was informed of the shipments of the cement.But the court found it puzzling what the appellant meant when he said ‘having nothing to do with the first shipments of cement.’ The court was therefore of opinion that the appellant should have been questioned on this point in order to clarify exactly what he meant by that statement.