SECRET COMMISSION CHARGE

Evening Star, Issue 17312, 27 March 1920, Page 4

SECRET COMMISSION CHARGE

TOURIST ADVERTISEMENTS. At Wellington yesterday Mr V,. Vive, S.M., heard the case brought bv the police under t t >e Secret Commission Act. Frank Montague Ream, traveller, was charged that lie did corruptly give to an agent" of the Crown in respect to the business of the Department of the Tourist and Health Resort? a gift of a sum of £3 as a reward for _ having done an act in relation to the business 'of the Crown—to wit, the procuring by the said department of an advertisement in the periodical publication ' Wheeling.' Arthur Roes Thomas, company manager was charged with aiding and abettimMhe commission by F. M. Team of an offence against section 5 of 'the Secret Commission Act by t-iving an agent the sum of £Z. Mr P. S. Macassey, who appeared for the Crown, said the defendant was employed as a canvasser for the publication 'Vvneehng.' He saw the agent tourist ofßcer__and .secured an advertisement costing £3. After the advertisement was arranged for I'earn saw the agent and offered him money, which he refused to take. The agent was advertising clerk in the Tourist Department. Later Ream saw the agent and gave him an. envelope which contained three £1 notes. The agent sent back the money later on bv cheque. Thomas C. E. Cox said ho had' been employed as manager-editor of 'Wheeling' until the first week in November last, when he resiened. Some time in October I'earn came into his office and asked for a plain envelope, which was given him. Ream then rang no an agent at the Tourist Office ahd asked him to meet him (Ream) in a quarter of an hoar. Some time later Beam told witness thai he gave the agent some money which the latter was glad to receive. Before the Public Service Commissioner, _who Jield the investigation, Rearn bad said that the money was a present from Thomas and witness to the agent. To Mr Myers (defendant's counsel) : As far o.s ho (witness) was aware, Rearn had not received commission on advertisements prior to this. Rearn was working on a. salary.

Mr Myers said that the charge was that on November 8 Ron in did " corrupt! v" give to an agent £5 for '"procuring" an advertisement. The agent did not procure the and the advertising contract was made on October 21. Xo payment was made, and no payment had been siuztrcsted up to that time'. The first suggestion was made on or about November 2 or 3. some time after the contract had been concluded. Before there could be an offence the person paying the money must have done so corruptly. There were two reasonable and possible inferences to be drawn, one guilty and one innocent. The court knew that an innocent inference must- be drawn. There must have been payment about the time the contract wag made, or there must have been an agreement or offer before the contract w;is made to make a payment afterwards. The payment ry promise of payment must be in the nature of <i reward. A payment of 111 is kind was reprehensible, hut it was quite another thing to suggest that the payment was an offence against the Statute. A contract for the advertisement was not made by I'earn and the agent. The contract was fixed by Mr Wilson, head of the department, and there was no payment nor any suggestion of payment when the contract was made. Counsel concluded by claiming that the information should be dismissed. The Magistrate reserved his decision. The case against Thomas was adjourned sine die.