Asks Why Mash Not Prosecuted

Northern Advocate, 20 July 1949, Page 4

Asks Why Mash Not Prosecuted

WELLINGTON, Wed. (Spn "Why was the then acting Prime Minister (Mr Nash) not prosecuted for receiving stolen property, ii-ke anyone else?” asked Mr A. J. Murdoch (O—Marsden) in mentioning the Holmes case in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. Mr Murdoch said a satchel containing papers and a camera had been removed from a motor car left outside Parliament Buildings. This was clear proof that somebody was guilty of theft. ‘'l do not know who stole them, but I know who received them/’ said Mi' Murdoch. "When he received them he was the acting Prime Minister, and lie was guilty of an offence.” A Government voice: Be careful. Mr Murdoch: I do not have to be careful. If a man in ordinary life did that he would be prosecuted. Why was the Minister not prosecuted? “FORGET IT’’-’ Speaking later in the debate, Mr R. M. Macfarlane „ (G—Christchurch Central) discussed Communism. He said the Communists should be attacked in a positive way, and one of the positive methods was—-‘‘Satchel-snatching?- ’ interjected Mr W. A. Shoal (O—Paica). Mr Hackett i Postmaster-General): Ah. forget it, forget if. After a point of order had been disposed of, in which Mr Shcat assured the Speaker he was not referring to a member of the House, Mr Macfarlane said that it satchel-snatching was necessary from the security point of view, he would justify it.