BRIBERY PROVED.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19862, 25 February 1930, Page 5

BRIBERY PROVED.

BOOKMAKER'S GIFTS TO

POLICEMEN.

A HAMILTON CASE. (PBES3 AJSOCIATIOK TILEOBAIt.) HAMILTON, February 24. Harry Abraham Samuels, tailor, of Hamilton, charged with bribing two detectives by giving each £lO and a case of pipes, appeared before Mr Justice Smith in the Supreme Court at Hamilton to-day. Samuels was recently convicted of bookmaking and fined £3OO. . ~ Summing, up, his Honour said accused was not charged with the offence of bookmaking, but with an offence which affected the administration of justice. The jury had, therefore, to consider the charge entirely irrespective of the question of bookmaking. Did accused in the jury's opinion offer the gifts to the two detectives as a bribe m order to induce them to forgo their duty? The charge, said his Honour, was a serious one, which went to the whole root of the administration of justice. His Honour reviewed the evidence briefly, referring especially to Samuels's prior conduct in approaching the two detectives, when he suggested an interview at Detective Thompson s House and when he offered Detective White a suit of clothes. The jury were entitled to ask themselves what was the intention of accused in sending the two officers these presents in such circumstances, and m view of the fact that Detective Thompson had already threatened to put down bookmaking, in view of the fact that a strange policeman had _ already attempted to make a bet with him, also in view of recent raids the inference was that the bribes weve offered with corruot intent. After a retirement of two hours the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Sentence was postponed.

JURYMAN MISSING.

UNUSUAL POSITION AT HAMILTON. (FRE3S ASSOCIATION TELEGEAU.) HAMILTON, February 24. An unusual position arose in the bribery ens© at Hamilton to-day. When the officers in charge of the jury lined them up to take them for lunch they discovered that only eleven were P 1 "®" sent, one having gone home. On the resumption the position was explained to the Judge, who thought in the circumstances that the jury should be dismissed. . j« » The Crown Solicitor pointed out that if the present jury recorded a conviction this would be invalid. On prisoner's counsel and counsel tor the other side intimating that they had no objection to the present jury hearing the case, and on the juryman in question declaring on oath that he had not spoken to anybody but nis wife, the case was allowed to proceed.