SECRET COMMISSIONS

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 78, 1 April 1920, Page 7

SECRET COMMISSIONS

TRAVELLER FINED £25

CHAP.GE AGAINST MANAGER

DISMISSED

Judgment was'given'by My. E. Page, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court, ite.day! regarding the law". points 'raised by\"Mr., , M. Mytrs in .defence of ltank. MontaguePearn, a- traveller in the employ'of the V firm of Hope Gibbons, Sons, and J. 8.. Olarkson, Ltd,, who was charged, some. days ago with'having^committed a breach/ of the Secret Commissions Act.. It was alleged that Pearn had'Jcorruptly given to Richard Sydney Gilkinson, Civil servant, in. the employ. of the Department of Tourist and Health Resorts, a sum of £3 as a reward for his having procured' from the Department an advertisement im the monthly publication Wheeling. ,• \ The facts, as'stated by Mi-: P, S.-K. Macassey, who appeared for the Crown, wei'e that Pearn was employed in.con-; V nection with Wheeling, and had;gone to-"" the Departments offices, and - had. obtained a contract far. the insertion ■ of ait advertisement for a . period „of threei months at a price of £30. Later Peara; ■'.- offered Gilkinsori a sum of money,.but tlja! offer was refused. Some time afterwards! ,Pearn made, an appointment; by .tele- ; phone, and when he met Gilkinson handed him an envelope, which was found to" contain three, pound notes, and a card endorsed : "For Mrs. .Gilkinson, with -my, compliments.". ■-. .. : ,> • The Magistrate 7 held .that .the. money had been "corruptly, given, for,;under the Act money given, to the wife or other relation of the agent was deemed to'be giveil to the.agent, and,.in his opinion, the Act was not so' narrow as to insist that there must be payment or a promise of payment before the procuring of anact, in this case, the .insertion, of an ad- ' vertisement. The: Legislature, said Mr. - . Page, looked upon the offence as a- serious !. one, and in this case .it was not ...as if Gilkinson had requested, some reward, for Pearn had actually pressed the money '; upon him. It was a class of. offence somewhat difficult to,'. ■ detect/-J.an,':,insidjbus,■■ offence, and the fact that the Act'provided for substantial penalties showed',. that it was not to be treated ■ lightly... i HV would therefore impose, a fine of £25.with costs amounting to £3 4s. '■■■;■.'.> On the application of Mr. Myers ' security for appeal Wa s' fixed a-ta sum ■ of £10 10s above the amount of fine and costs. . «. ' ; . ■ ,■■■•.'. .-■■,/

THE SECOND CASE.

The case agaiust Arthur Rees Thomas,general manager, of the firm of: Hope Gibbons,-Sons, and J, B. Clarkson, Ltd., of_ aiding and abetting.Eeam',itt the com-: 1 mission of the offence was then proceeded. 'With. t _ ■ ■•■.■■ -'.'-;',: Thomas Cox, ex-editor of ,Wheeling,-- . who' was the chief, witness in'the case against -Pearn, was. again called" by: :Mf> Idacassey, and as the' case yproceedeicl" was subjected to searching cross-examina-tion by' Mr. Myers.-: v .■'''.: He stated that he had had; a\c'ohvsrsation. with Thomas over the ■ of the advertisement,"and the..manager had remarked, " Yes, Pearn fixed -that, up,' but we will have to pay someone ■ down there £5 out of it."- ■ .";.; ' Under.: cross-examjnation.. witness- re-' jcalled a conversation he had had with a 'Mr.- Rickard, who subsequently replaced him. as editor of Wheeling. He flatly: denied that lie had suggestedkto Rickard that he should can'^ass' for flic pa-rticu-lar adTertiieiiient and -offer a. new coat or a hat as ah. inducement. ■ - Mr. Myers: " Did Bickard not. reply that he did not know how the firm would view such a ,:proposition and that lie would see Mr. Thomas about it?"— ." Wo, certainly not," "Did he not subsequently, say -that,.he had seen >Mr. Thomas ~.and: ——?"—"I am-- Uot here to give fox evidence. X°u offered to bribe ma yourself, to give fox evidence." .";, ■' , ' ' ' ..':'-,".

Addressing the Bench, Mr. Myers protested indignantly that, the- suggestion'/ was. monstrous, -that 1 he had neved seeft '-. the. man befoi-6 the case opened.'; ;"'",_, It then transpired, "under a." rapid-fire cross-examination; that Cox's allegation. was based upon the contents of' solicitor's^: lettei'o, written "without prejudice,"; prior to the opening of. the case, whei'. negotiations .were 1: being made 'between...: the solicitors', for Cox and the,'defendants. Such letters, said Mr. 'Myers, V were without prejudice, and Cox should have known that their contents should,: have been respected,' arid as they.'wers , " without 1 prejudice"- should not have-: been divulged xmder any L circumstances. : ■Cox! admitted that he had supplied:a, copy of one of'the letters to thel police. ■;: The cross-examinatiop continued and. the :witness-was asked : ''Have you' not;'' said that while you were employed on other papers quite a substantial amount." wa,s allowed for-this purposas ' (re ; :-;, ferring to the commission paid to.Gilr kinson)? —"That is untrue:" V , ! Witness denied having said''that.'he would get even with Thomas after the , lafsef- had inform-.d him on 20th. November that the directors had decided upon a change- in the management; of Wheeling and had therefore asked him. to tender his: resignation■ whenr*'he.found . another position. •/-'■ ." ;■■'•;., "Did you not yourself, suggest to Pearn tliat he/should make some pay- : merit 1 to someone in the-Department's offices?"—"No, but I know, who did. - "Did you laterVon ask if be had: ap- " proached the firm on the subject? '.— SI do-h't think I,talked it over with him, it is hard to remember." ■ '„,,

"Did you not on 22nd November go to sec Mr. Hope Gibbons at his house?"—" Yes."

"When did yon first speak rtovßetec-tive-Sergeani Bawle ?"—"On the Sunday following."'. :.. ' .\ . .;..■"• "That was alter you' had been told that you were to lose your position?"— "Yes." •":.' /.■'■:/ /•: ;...:;-,:.;

"Did yoii in conversation with Mr. Hope Gibbons say that you were being sacked to make place fcfr a returned soldied (Richard), and that' unless you wero retained and the other men sacked you would inform the authorities -of wnat had happened?" —"Not as definitely as that, but I did say that I would report the matter unless it was cleared up."

"BLACKMAIL" MENTIONED,

"Did he not say that he would not be blackmailed and that ho'would discuss the matter no further?"—"He did mention the word 'blackmail,' but we parted good friends."

"Did not Mr. Hope Gibbons say that it was a case of your word against his, and as he had no proof of the conversation you would be able to say that your conversation was in regard to an entirely different matter?"— "~Xo." "So that if Mr. Hope Gibbons enters tho box and makes such a statement he will be saying what is untrue?"—"Tos." "Moreover, did you noti demand an answer by the following Tuesday?"— "No."

Counsel produced a letter from Cox to Mr. Hope (.ribbons requesting that Thomas and Pearti shoiil he- dismissed from service as ho objected to work with men who had been guilty of criminal practices.

"Did you not on a following Tuesday say to Mi\ Hope Gibbons that you-had received; word frorii the Public Service Commissdrier and that if he was prepared to saclj Thomas you would promise- that nothing more would be heajd of the riiat-ter?"-"No." „,■■■■ \:.

"Did you not cay that Thomas was thn man you wanted'to get at, .and'that,.as you had saved uc some money- aw|'had

haH'.-JG&O "left'you, 'you were' prepared to., sjiendlifall, and,- if necessary, to sell papers in the street to gain your ends ?" : — I did not." • i "If Mr. Hope Gibbons says that that ' 'conversation took place he is telling un--truths ?"—"Yes, but I did tell him that II did not wjsh to bring the firm's name -mto the matter Ho replied that hi •appreciated my attitude, but would hay» 'nothing to do with my doing 60 " NOT O"UT OF SPITD t Questioned aa^io his leason foi laving ihe ""mfQTmatjotf igainst Pearn and ffhnmas, witness laplied that he did not «do so out of'spite, but out of f«!ai that 'the lnfoimition would leak out , "You knew earh m November of the ■pijing of the mono},-Ji't it was not •until after joui conversation \ ith Mi Jlope Gibbons tlut your feir piompted £ou to hy the information' I—"Yes1 —"Yes it ,-vis ifterwardi " J "Is it not a f >ct that you yourself have received 'gifts' without the knowledge of jour principle 7'— Witness admitted ithat ho had received a sum of £4 from a pnntei named SI ide, but that, he «iid wns bj way of lepayment for cigarettes and ifternoon teas which Slade hid consumed m witness b office • The Magistrate "Do you really mean Jme to tike tint seriously'"—"Yes, I had mentioned, many,, times that he was tunning up .i bill It went on for a long period Slade also gave me Christ "mas bo\es, usually of £5, but Slade never induced me to give his business " ' OTHER INCIDENTS *■ Another firm was mentioned, the Goldberg Advertising Company, and witness '" admitted having received clothes or money : for clothes from this firm on two occafeions, but those gifts, he explained were " jnade in respect of certain confidential >ork he had earner out for the firm ' Cox was also questioned as to his part in obtaining foi a young man a reporter's railway ticket, when the recipient was not a permanent Teporier. He replied that the person m question was a temporary leporterj and that no complaint h<id ever been made to hjm ' I "You have discussed thisi matter of secret commissions with Pearn at various tunes?"—"Ye= "

'. ! "And did 'not ;you tell.him that if he approached Uete'ctive-Sergeant Rawle the' fatter would Vma,ke a „ that jvould keep Pearii^'buti' "of^'trouble?" —"I <did say that *i|Mie approacfied a certain person, meaning J&;ißS.wle, it'might be Jjpssible for him to'keep out of trouble." « "Will you swear that you did not say in th« presence of Fearc, 'I aflmit that it is Thomas that I am af fcer' ? "—"There was so much tittle-kittle I cannot remember; I cannot swear."

SPLEEN AND VENOM.

Mr. -Myers at this stage said that he did not-think there was- a case to answer. His Worship had heard Cox's answers to the questions put to him,,and there was no'iieed-for him'(counsel) to elaborate on the matter. He had," he held, shown that Cox was actuated throughout by motives arising from spleen.i'arid venom.

The Magistrate said that.he did not consider that there was sufficient evidence to justify his calling upon Thomas to answer the charge, and he would therefore dismiss, the information.