THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 10792, 29 November 1898, Page 2

THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SESSIONS. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Pennefather.) ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO BRIBE A WITNESS. Peter Grant was arraigned on an indictment charging him that he was, on November 3, 1898, charged before E. H. Carew, S.M., at Dunedin, on the information o f Terence O’Brien, with being, on October 20 and 21, the occupier of a certain office in the Arcade at Dunedin which he unlawfully used for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto upon certain events and contingencies of and relating to horse racing, contrary to statute; and that ono Albert Evans was a witness for the prosecution on the hearing of the said information, and was in attendance at the court on the said 3rd day of November to testify what ue knew of and concerning the matter of the said information, and that the said Peter Grant, well knowing the premises, but contriving and intending to unlawfully pervert the due course of justice, attempted to dissuade the said Albert Evans from giving evidence by offering him the sum of £lO as a bribe not to give his evidence on the hearing of the said information. Mr Sim and Mr Hanlon appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. In the empannelling of he jury the Crows Prosecutor (Mr Fraser) exercised his right of challenge by ordering nine of the gentlemen called on to stand aside, and the counsel for the prisoner challenged ten times. The Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case, said that the careful investigation of such a charge and the just punishment of it. if the jury were satisfied of accused’s guilt, was a matter of vital importance to the community. It must be perfectly evident to everyone that nothing could be more important than to preserve inviolate t’ o course of justice in our courts. It must ba evident to all that it was of absolute end vital importance that the course of justiio should be absolutely free, and not tarn pc*.cl with in the slightest way. What would be the position of citizens in this comm l r.ty if they could not look forward to a fa.r trial in a court of law, either on the civil or criminal side? Once they allowed the corrupting effect of bribery to eat its way into the very heart of the courts then the people might say good-bye to their birthright. R. P. Ward, clerk of the criminal side af the Magistrate’s Court at Dunedin, produced the written information on which prisoner was convicted in the lower court of keeping a gaming-house, and gave evidence regarding the position of the witnesses’ room, which is on the other side of a passage a* the back of the court room. He beard Evans, when giving evidence in the court below on the gaming charge, say that G. ant had offered him £lO not to give evidence. Grant’s plea of “ Not guilty ” was withdrawn after Evans had made that statement. By Mr Sim: Evans made the statement right at the end of his evidence, and it was after Armishaw, the next witness, was m the box that the plea of “ Guilty ” was substituted for that of “ Not guilty.” Witness took down the depositions in the present case. They were read over to the witnesses before they signed them. Albert Evans, a laborer, deposed that he was in the Police Court oil November 5 to give evidence in a case against Grant. There were two other witnesses in the cass, of whom he had no knowledge before, lie attended at ten minutes to eleven. He wis in the witnesses’ room waiting for the case to be called on when accused came in. He came towards witness and asked him if he was a witness in the case. Witness repfis t “ Yes,” and Grant then asked him his natron He replied that he would know soon enough. Accused said he would like to have a word with him, and the two went out together. There was a man in the passage outside. Accused asked witness if he was making anything’ out of the case, and witness said “ No.” Grant then said : “ Then we will be able to come to terms,” and said he would give witness £lO if he would refuse to give evidence, saying it was a chance to make a “tenner” easily, and that he ran no risk, as they could not force him to give evidence. Witness asked if he was quite sure, and Grant said he was positive. Witness said ; “Come inside and have a word with thi other fellow.” Grant hesitated for a minute, 1 and then followed witness into the r'Oin again. They went up to Armishaw, and witness said to him ; “ Gv- nt has ofie ‘ed me £lO if I will refuse to give evidence. Vi I;at do you think of it?” Accused heard the statement. Armishaw did not reply, and Grant offered him (Armishaw) £lO also if he would refuse to give evidence. Turning to witness, Grant asked if it was a bargain, and he (witness) said “No.” Armishaw said it was very risky. A man named Wynne said that witness and Armishaw should have a talk over the affair and see if they could arrange the matter. He and Armishaw went outside, and were followed by accused and the other man. They urged them to take the £lO and refuse to give evidence, but witness declined. Accused met him again near the urinal, and said: “You had better take the £lO. You had better ‘take it on.’ You will lie running no risk and doing me a good turn.” Accused also offered him another £5 to endeavor to persuade the other witness to “take it on.” Witness refused. Grant, Wynne, and witness went back to the witness room, and a few minutes later Mr Hanlon came into the loom. Wynne said; "Mr Hanlon, these two chaps are witnesses in this case, and I Lave been telling them they can’t be forced to give evidence. Am I right?” Mr Hanlon laughingly replied “ Yes.” Mr Hanlon was not engaged in the case. That terminated Grant’s interview with witness. He had not been given anything for the information he gave in connection with the gambling case. He had no promise or hope of reward when he gave the information. By Mr Sun : He had been doing no work since the case in the lower court. He was dismissed from the railway after the hearing of the case. He backed two horses et the Oamarn races with the accused. He did not know what odds he was to get. He did not know he was to get totalisator odds. Ho was a tool in the detective's hands, and at bis suggestion made wagers with accused and Moss and Barnett with the object of getting convictions. DsU c’ive O’Brien supplied the money, and took the winnings when they were handed over to him. Detective O’Brien had no hold upon him. Counsel might take it that be played tbe part of spy and informer out of pure love of the work. He was prepared to staud or fall on the statement that on the first occasion Grant , came into the room alone. In the subsequent conversations Wynne heard all that was said. He was positive that Grant offered Armishaw money, even if Armishaw said that Grant offered him no money. Hewould swear positively that neither Grant nor Wynne went out of tbe witness room before witness. Re-examined: Prisoner was in tbe room at least three times. During the interview* the man Wilson was sitting about three yards away from witness. The conversations were carried on in a very low tone. Douglas Armishaw, a journeyman baker iu Dunedin, deposed that he was a witness in the charge against accused in the Police Court on November S. He went to the court about 10.30, and entered tbe small teem at the back of the court. Evans and Wilson were both there. He did not know either of them then. door of the room was shut, and Grant entered and went cowards Evans, to whom he spoke in a low lone. He (witness) could not catch what was said. Evans and Grant went oat and subsequently returned, and Evans said to witness that he had been offered £lO, so that he would not have to give evidence. Ke did not think Grant said anything to that. Grant said he would leave it to them to have a talk over, and went outside. Grant returned a little while afterwards, and asked them if they had made their minds up. Witness did not know whether he spoke or not. Grant said he did cot want to be put in gaol—he bad a wife and family; and then made lbs temark : “Is it going to ba a bargain." He and Evans wcie together, and he did not know to which of them the remark was made. Grant tlien asked if it was enough, and witness irplicd t i.«t it was any amount, but he was “noton.” Wittes told Grant he was very foolish, as be did not know whether they were friends or enemies. Grant replied that he would chance all that, and witness said that it was too risky.

tte was trying to bribe them, and might get himself into trouble. He thought Grant came into the room about three times. He Saw three or four of Grant’s companions about and in the room. One was named Wynne, and the other was a stout gentleman with a while vest and belltoppcr.— (Laughter.) By Mr Hanlon; Ha might have recollected last Thursday what took place on the 3rd ol November, and yet forgot the statement he made last Thursday. He would not swear that Grant offered him any money. He was quite certain that no paper or coin was held out to him, but he heard it rattling. —(Laughter ) Ho could not remember whether Grant said ho would give him any money. When ho went to back the horse with accused he was doing so on his own responsibility. He had no understanding with Detective O’Brien, and did not sec the detective until on his way up to Grant’s. He told O’Brien he was going to back Black and Red, and he did so. Detective O’Brien give him the tip of Cherrystone, and he backed if. He used his oun money, and kept the dividends. lie had never backed horses himself before, but had given another person money to pot on icr 1 vn. On this occasion D.-'cciivc O Bricn did not ask him to put tin money on. !’• ■ ■ v" O’Brien did not ink fi" n to wager with iUlferent bookmakers. Ho dal not understand that Lk-.av. was to be a case made out oi bis bets. In a s>ul)>v (p.'.enl conversation with O’Ur ten he told him (1 1 . c detective) what Imr--.a ho had backed, for what amounts, and, ho thought, with whom ho had wagered. He. could not ray whether O’Brien made ft note of what was said. No arrangement was made with O’Brien that ho was to back certain horses. O'Brien gave him certain tips, and witness said he would try them. Ho had known Detective O'Brien for about three months. Detective O’Brien did not mention that he was to get part of the fine. There was a big rumor about that he was to get £SO, but ho had seen nothing of it.— (Laughter.) Detective O’Brien did not tell him that Evans was nuking wagers that day. Re-examined : The first he knew of any proceedings being taken in consequence of his bets was when lie received the summons. All he had received out of the matter was his expenses for attending the court. Peter Wilson, a laborer, deposed that he was a witness in Moss’s case in the lower court on November 3, but was not call id on in Grant’s or Barnett’s. He went to the witnesses’ room when he first went to the court. Evans and Armishaw were there then. He did not Know them previously. He was sitting near the window when Grant came in. He did not overhear what Grant said to the other two. They were some distance away, and Grant was speaking very low. Grant came in again wuh another man. He heard Grant’s companion say to Annishow and Evans ; “1 don’E want you to say anything; I want yon not to say anything after yon are sworn.” Grant was present when this was said. Grant came into the room three or four limes at least.

By Mr Sim : To the best of his recollection Grant came in alone the first time. Witness had made wagers with Barnett, Grant, and Moss on the Oamaru races. He bad never done business with Moss or Grr.nl before, but ho had had a wager with Barnett before. He got no tips from Detective O’Brien and did not see him before he made the wagers. He saw him in Princes street after he made the wagers. He had put on 5j with each of the three bookmakers. O’Brien’s first remark when they met was : “ You have been going it heavy/’ Witness did not know what ho meant, and O’Brien said; “You have been backing some horses, haven’t yon.” Witness replied in the affirmative, and O’Bi'en asked how he had got on, to which witness replied that the races were not run yet. He did not know how O’Brien knew that he had been betting. He did not tell O’Brien anything about the wagers he had made, and he did not know how the detective was able to say in opening the case in the lower.court what horses he (Wilson) had backed.

This closed tho case for the prosecution, and the defence proposed to call evidence. Mr Hanlon, in opening the case for the defence, said that it was incumbent upon the Grown to prove their case with clear and undoubted evidence. Now tho evidence called for the prosecution, even if uncontroverted by evidence on the other side, was not sufficient upon which to convict. Tney, however, proposed to go further than that, and would cal! evidence to show that prisoner was absolutely gudcless of the crime preferred against him. Learned counsel asked the jury to pay close attention to the witnesses called on either side. His leanud friend, in opening the case, admitted that his witnesses were informers. That was so, and being so, their evidence was not. worthy of consideration. It was incredible that Evans should go and make bets for the purpose of enabling tho police to lay an information, and for which he loses his situation, without any reward. But his evidence on the main point of the present case—namely, the offering of a money bribe to Armiahaw—was denied by Armiahaw. In the lower court lust Thursday Armishaw gave bis evidence in a clear manner, but to-day he oould remember nothing. Why, because on on Thursday he was fresh from being coached, and no trouble had been taken to keep him wellinformed in his story in the meantime, and he could not remember what he had slated on his oath ou Thursday. Then Wilson was a most exit, ordinary witness. He was present in tho room when aM this alleged conspiracy was going on, and yet went into the witness box and said he knew nothing about it. Evans and Armishaw were common informers in the employment of Detective O’Brien, who was really the prosecutor in this case, and these men were capable of any low and mean act. And it waa on tho evidence of such men as these that the jury were asked to send the prisoner to gaol. He would call prisoner and Wynne, and they would tell the jury that no such offer was made to Evans as the latter said there was, but Grant would give the true state of affairs. They would be told by the witnesses for the defence that what Evans and Armiahaw were asked to do was to refuse to answer questions put to them because their answers might incriminate themselves, and that tho Court would have to lend them its protection. What Grant did was not to dissuade the witnesses from giving their evidence, but he endeavored to persuade them that there waa no necessity for them to give evidence, because as they had been engaged in a statutory offence —namely, tote-betting—the law extended to them the privilege of not answering the questions at all, and he asked them to avail themselves of that privilege. They could easily see what waa Grant’s motive. Ho did not want to go to gaol, and said to these men: “ You have the right not to give evidence; do that and help me.” That was the real and true position of the case. Counsel submitted that if tho jury considered the characters of tho witnesses called on either side they would have no difficulty in deciding which lot of them were telling the most probable story. lo was absurd that the jury should be asked to believe that men like Evans, informers, were offered £lO and refused it. If they had been offered the money they would‘have taken it and been glad of it. Taking all things into consideration, learned counsel submitted that after they had heard the evidence they would have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that prisoner was not guilty of the charge brought against him. Evidence was given by William Hayes, William Wynne, and the prisoner. The evidence for the defence closed at half-past four.

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs .-V Mercer and D. H. Hastines, justices.) Drunkenness.- Two first offenders were convicted and discharged. (Mr J. A. Millar, M.H.R., here took his seat on the bench, and Mr Hastings left.) Resisting the Police.—Donald M‘Lcod pleaded not guilty to a charge of drunkenness and to two charges of assaulting Constables Melville and Cruickshanks while in the execution of their duty.—Sergeant O’Neill said that defendant was found kicking the door of the Imperial Hotel this morning at 1.30. Constable .Melville, who was oif duty in Princes street at the time, was attracted to the place. He remonstrated

with him, but could not get defendant to go away. Defendant followed the constable np the street, where they met Constable Cruickshanks, and eventually he had to be taken into custody.—After the evidence had been heard, defendant denied all the charges, and said ho was merely trying to get into his lodgings.—Convicted and discharged on the first charge; fined 2s 6d on each of the others. . By-law Cases.—For driving round the corner of Princes and Rattray streets at other than a walking pace Hector M’Caughau was fined 2s 6d. For allowing cattle to wander at large Duncan M‘Mu 11 an (Maori Hill) was fined 3s, George Warsdell (Northeast Valiev) Is, James Pollock (North-east Valley) Is,' Esther M. Brown (West Harbor) 2s ink Andrew Wilson (West Harbor) 2s 6d, Thomas Gregory (West Harbor) 2s 6d. A similar charge against John Scott Thomson was dismissed. For riding a bicycle after dark without a light Robert A. Barr was lined 2s 6d.

A Prohibition Order. —On his own application an order of this nature was granted against David Dickson.