ALLEGED BRIBERY

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 292, 7 December 1920, Page 8

ALLEGED BRIBERY

IN THE EASTON CASE. ACCUSED SENT FOR TRIAL. (By Telepraph. —Press Association.) PALMKRSTON NORTH, Monday. At the Magistrate's Court to-day Thomas Martin, labourer, was charged that on or about November 9 he attempted to influence by a bribe a juryman, Angus Duncan Campbell, in the case of the King v. Frederick Spencer Easton. Three other charges were also preferred against Martin of attempting to influence Charles William Fuller, John Kosanowski, and Edward Gilshnan, other jurymen, in their conduct.

Detective Quirke prosecuted, and the accused was defended by Mr. A. M. Ongley. Angus Duncan Campbell said that on November i> he was in attendance at the Supreme Court as a juror. The accused was also at the Court on lh;U day, and spoke to witness first of all in the courthouse. He a-sked witness if he was a juryman. Witness replied that he -was. Accused did not say anything further just then. After the jurymen had been discharged from duty until the next morning witness was leaving the courthouse when the accused *j>oke to him again, and said he was present on behalf of the Eastou case. If witness wanted to make any money there was a chance for him to do so. He told witness that Easton ivas a millionaire, and that he had authority from him to say that he was prepared to spend £10,000 to get out of the trouble he was in. Witness told the accused he was running a pretty Trig rkk doing a thing like that. The accused replied that he was prepared to take the risk because he -was getting well paid for it.

While cycling in Featherston Street, about seven o'clock the same day, the accused overtook witness, and they rode along together. He again mentioned the case, and witness said: "What are you prepared to give!" The accused casually mentioned £50.

Edward Gilslinan, carpenter and builder, said he saw accused in Court and was aproaehed by him 'before the common jury was called. Witness was sitting on a seat behind the dock when someone tapped him on the shoulder and said that "Whoever was on the jury in the big case it would pay them to let him off." The name of the case was not mentioned, but it seemed to be understood. Witness said: "1 have no inclination to be on the case, and you can take my place." Accused replied:

"I wish to God 1 could," and ugain said that the man was "well oIT, and it would pay the jury to acquit him.''

Accused had also said to witness on the Friday: "Don't bring him in guilty." and said that "Easton would like to know who were his friends on the jury."

To Mr. Ongley: Witness \va.s never offered money except in a general way, that it '"would pay the jury" to bring Easton in not guilty. He had no reason to expect that ho would have received anything if the verdict was "not guilty." ANOTHER JURYMAK'S STORY. Charles William Fuller, also a juryman, said accused accosted him on the footpath during the luncheon adjournment. The accused said: "You're one of the jurymen?" Witness said "Yes." He said, "If you are picked as jurymae on Easton'a case and 'bring him in not guilty, Mr. Easton will sec you right. He has plenty of money "

John Bernard Rosanowski said he was on the jury in the case of the King v. McConaehie. After the jury had given their verdict accused said to him: "'1 am glad you let that fellow off. I knew he was not guilt}' from the start." He then said: "I suppose you would like to get on Easton's case?" Witness replied:

"Xo, I do not wish to get on any case. I would rather go back to work, as 1 am losing money by being on the jury." Accused then said: "It might pay you better to go on Easton's case, and let him off." Witness 'had no further conversation with the accused.

The accused pleaded not guilty to all the charges, and reserved his defence, saying, "We will have a box on later." He was committed to the next sitting of the Palmerston North Supreme Court, to commence on February 15, 1921. Bail was allowed in self of £100 and two sureties of £100 each.