TIN HARE SCANDAL

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 16, 19 July 1932, Page 7

TIN HARE SCANDAL

INFLUENCING LEGISLATORS

EVIDENCE AT INQUIRY;

SYDNEY, 18th July.

The mechanical hare inquiry was continued to-day. Further attempts were made by Mr. Justice Halse Bogers, the Royal Commissioner, to trace what became of a cheque for £5000 which" was freely mentioned in .evidence* last week. , '■■•'" f'' ■ ■ ■ '■ ■ ..

Henry Malmgron, sharebroker,' "who was recalled, admitted' having written a letter to. Mr. P. Swindell, who was prominently identified with tin-hare racing, telling him of the sale of 2500 shares in the Greyhound Coursing Club, for.which he received a cheque- from Mr. Swindell for £5000. He also admitted that the contents: of the letter were untrue. , ! < : The Eoyal Commissioner: "Then -the letter can be characterised as a lying letter?" '■:■■: ■ ; .■ : "Witness: "Yes." ■■' ■■ ' . . > . . The Eoyal Commissioner: "Were you in the habit of writing lying letters to cover up any. transaction!?' ?. "Witness:'"No." . Jack Munro,. chairman lof the- Australian Coursing Club, told-the story of the efforts'made some "timel ago to legalise night mechanical hare- coursing, and how a man with a supposed: social pull, named Barry, came -onthe" scene with the object of inducing cetrain. influential members, of the Legislative Council to push legislation through that Chamber. He said that Mr. Barry wanted 5.000 shares"in the event of his social influence being successful. Such, a contract was eventu-. ally arranged. The shares, . which ■originally were worthless, jumped from Is 3d to 10s almost .the'moment the legislation - was. : passed. '^ MrJ Barry also proposed that the'-ram^ofs £1500' a year should-be-spentcin:advertising in the "Labour Daily," which, would be'bound to boost tin hates.: "

Joseph Galbraith, former, secretary of the Greyhound Coursing Association, recalled, was examined .about'the honorarium of- £1000 and.other sums paid to Mr,. Keighery, who knew Mr. Lang. He said that Mr. Swindell was present at; all 'meetings. No vouchers were' Witness knew nothing of the circumstances under which payments were mad© to Mr. Keigfcery, and he did not know that .h« did anything of .consequence on behalf, of the company. . v .' ■'- .■■ ■.;',,.-. •

The inquiry was adjourned,