THE ALLEGED BRIBERY CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6749, 5 July 1883, Page 6

THE ALLEGED BRIBERY CASE.

W. V. Stevens surrendered to hie bail yesterday, 'in the Supreme Court, upon the charge of offering the sum of two hundred guineas to Mr. T. W. Lewis, Under-Secrelary to the Native Minister, in order to induce him to act contrary to his office. The letter, which has already been published, was set ont.

After the indictment had been read, Mr. Theo. Cooper said he appeared, with Mr. Dufaur, for the defendant, and before the defendant pleaded he proposed to take objection to the indictment.

Mr. Hudson "Williamson, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the Crown.

Mr. Cooper submitted that the indictment disclosed no offence. He quoted the definition of bribery given in "Knssell on Crimes," " Stephens' Criminal Law," " Harris' Criminal Law," and "Archbold," and contended that bribery (irrespectiveof any special offence created by statute, such as bribing members of Parliament) could only consist in two things—(l) bribing or attempting to bribe a public officer in his office as such, (2) bribing or attempting to bribe a Dublio officer to act contrary to the duties of his office. He referred to the case where a man was convicted for taking a bribe to exchange prisoners out of their turn, and argued that in that case it was the man's duty to exchange them in their proper turn. In Rex v. Vaughan it was the duty of the Duke of Grafton to recommend to the King persons for appointment to certain offices under the Crown. In Keg. v. Gurney the offence was tendering money to a judicial officer, a Chair' man of a Licensing B: nch. In all the authorities, and they were not very many, the gist of the offence was the breach of the officer's duty. The offence, therefore, being to attempt to corrupt a public officer to act contrary to his official duty, he contended that no such allegation or averment was contained iu the indictment. The indictment alleged that Lewis was an officer in the employment of the Executive Government of the colony as Under-Secretary to the Hon. John Bryce, Native Minister, and as such was the confidential official adviser of the said John Bryce, in matters pertaining to the Native Office. It then set out the letter which related to the purchase of land, and stated tbat, by such means, the defendant attempted to induce Lewis to act contrary to his official duty. He then quoted Rex v. Everet, and Rex v. Osmer, to show that the indictment must state the facts, showing such an act to be contrary to the officer's official dnty. In the present case, Mr. Lewis's duty was confined to matters pertaining to the Native Office. He had nothing to do with the purchase of land. He therefore moved the Court to quash the indictment.

Mr. Williamson contended that the> indictment was sufficient. It alleged that Mr. Lewis was ao officer of the Government, and that it was a breach of his official duty to accept the offer made by Mr, Steveas. . His Honor : In what way was it his duty to advise the Government to purchase lands? Mr. Williamson ; He was the confidential agent of a member of the Government.

His Honor : In matters pertaining to the Native Office.

Mr. Williamson : It would be a breach of hia duty to acccept money for advising the Minister in any matter. His Honor : If it was not his duty to advise on any matter relating to purchase of lands, how could it be a breach of his duty to accept money for so doing ? Mr. Williamson conteuded that in the position in which he was placed it was an offence to offer money to induce him to use his influence with the Government. He admitted that the purchase of lands was not in his department, and he could not prove more than was stated in the indictment. It was true also that the land was not native land.

His Honor: I have formed a clear opinion on the matter myself, but as this case is of a most important public nature, I shouM very much like the matter to be decided by the full Court of Appeal. Can you sugg st any way, Mr. Cooper ?

Mr. Cooper : I am not aware of any provision which would enable an argument of this nature to be removed to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Williamson : The indictment might be amended, and the case go to the jury, Mr. Cooper : In such case I should feel bound to ask your Honor to direct the jury to return a verdict of " Not guilty." His Honor: I feel I should so have to direct them. The only way of meeting the case would ba to remove the whole matter into the Court of Appeal and have it tried at Bar before the full Court.

Mr. Cooper : Although that would give it the dignity of a State prosecution, it would be very expensive for the defendant.

His Honor : Of course I will not shirk my duty, although I should prefer the matter to be decided by the full Court. I am already of opinion that the indictment is bad, but as the case is one of the greatest public importance, I will give a written judgment containing my full reasons. Let the case be placed at the bottom of the list.

Tie matter was then adjourned to the conclusion of the criminal sittings, and on the application of Mr. Cooper the defendant was released on his own recognisances.