SYDNEY CONTRACT CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17956, 5 December 1921, Page 9

SYDNEY CONTRACT CASE.

ARGUMENTS IN DEFENCE. BRIBERY NOT A CRIME. SUBORNATION SUGGESTED. Legal argument occupied the concluding proceedings in the preliminary trial at the Sydney Central Police Court of the charge against Alderman Richard D. Brainstem, in which Sir Allen Taylor is the informant, of having accepted a bribe in connection with a contract to supply wood blocks to the City Council. Mr. Mack, who appeared for the defendant, submitted that there was no case to call for defence. Even if there was a scintilla of evidence against the defendant it was an invisible scintilla. Even supposing all the allegations charged were true, no charge in law had been made out against defendant. The informant alleged that Bramston, being a member of the Municipal Council, had corruptly taken for himself and other persons unknown a bribe of £25. It happened, however, that there was no law in New South Wales to cover such a charge. In England there was such a law* In English-reported cases it had been held to bo an offence at common law to bribe people connected with the administration of justice, but in no case was it shown to have been an offence to bribe an alderman. He was not an official of the Crown, The Magistrate: How do you account for it having been held to be bribery to promise votes for the overseer of a pariah? Mr. Mack : In that case I think it would turn upon the overseer having been in receipt of salary from the Crown. The Magistrate: It was held that the position of the officer bribed was immaterial, so long as it was a publio position. The Conspiracy Charge. Mr. Mack: My argument that no charge in law is established is supported by the fact that in England a special statute was passed the Public Bodies Corruption Act (52 Victoria), making it an act of bribery to receive fee or reward as a member of a corporation, or to offer such reward. It is extremely unlikely that such a statuto would have been passed if the charge could be supported at common law. That statute is not in force in New South Wales. "Not only is there a charge against Bramston individually of taking a bribe, but there is a charge amounting to conspiracy with others. Not one tittle of evidence has been adduced in regard to other persons. All sorts of insinuations have been made by counsel, but none has been borne out by evidence. It is one of the roost peculiar prosecutions ever brought into a New South Wales Court, for everyone must agree that if the charge is true, the wrong person is being charged. In his place should be those who, on the evidence for the prosecution, engaged in a conspiracy to seduce Bramston from his allegiance and duty. The evidence shows Sir Allen Taylor to have been the ringleader. If it is true, then he and his witnesses have committed a grosser crime than Bramston. Of course, two wrongs do not mako a right, but when dependence is placed upon such evidence as has been tendered by the principal witnesses, what sort of case is there against the man charged?" Gill and Bead's Position. Referring to the evidence of the witnesses Gill and Griffiths ("Read"), Mr. Mack declared that there had never been a case in New South Wales in which men had come into Court and admitted themselves to be suborners, or in which anyone posing as a cleanser of jublic life had remained idle for seven,weeks after learning of improper conduct. At the request of Mr. Giles Shaw, SM., who said he would like to hear counsel on whether Gill and Griffiths were accomplices, Mr. Mack contended Gill and Griffiths were certainly accomplices, having been used ( not in the interests of justice as spies might be, but for the purrose of inducing a man to do wrong. "The officers of the council called as witnesses show that the conduct of the defendant had been perfectly proper all through. Not only has the charge been shown not to bo true, but it has been proved untrue out of the mouths of witnesses for the prosecution. No jury could possibly be expected to convict upon such evidence as has been put forward by the informant." Counsel contended that there was not the slightest corroboration of the alleged bribe having been given to Bramston, and every reason why the magistrate should, from the former history and evidence of these two witnesses, decline to believe anything they said. It was a most remarkable thing that the prime mover in the business and the informant had not gone into the witness box. There was every reason why he should give evidence. He was clearly implicated by the evidence in a conspiracy, and his failure to give evidence justified a very harsh conclusion. Committal for Trial. The Magistrate: I have no hesitation in ruling that the information is good. Counsel for the defence asks for dismissal on the further ground that there is not sufficient evidence, Gill and Griffiths being two accomplices whose evidence should not be relied upon unless corroborated. I should like to hear Mr. Windever on that point. Mr. Windeyer, K.C. (for_ the informant) : They are not accomplices. A man who is an accomplice is a man with a similar criminal intention of committing the same crime. The purpose here was not to corrupt an administrator but to see if they could get Bramston to take money. The intention of Gill and Griffiths was not the intention of Bramston. No Judge could direct that they were accomplices, because they were not uno animo to get Bramston to take money lo suborn other aldermen. In any case the question hardly arises in this case, since there is abundant corroboration. All this talk you have 'heard about conspiracy is quite away from the point. The Magistrate: I find a prima-racie case against accused. Accused, in reply to the usual charge, said he wished to plead not guilty and on the advice of counsel, reserved his defence. He was then committed for trial, and admitted to bail on his own recognisance of £80.