ATTEMPTED BRIBERY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18355, 22 March 1923, Page 8

ATTEMPTED BRIBERY.

BUILDER'S CORRUPT ACT.

MONEY TO GAIN FAVOUR.

OFFER TO PUBLIC SERVANT.

[BY. TELEGRAPH.PRESS ASSOCIATION.] CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday. . For giving a cheque for £5 to a Government valuer, Robert Duncan Benjamin, builder, of Christchurch, was fined £25 in the Magistrate's Court to-day urjder the" Secret Commissions Act, 1910. " This is the first charge of this nature that I have heard of in New Zealand," observed Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., who presided. "I do not know whether there have been any others. It shows that graft and bribery are not common in the business community." Benjamin was charged with having on December 6, 1922, corruptly given John Walker Stuart, a valuer employed by the Crown Lands Department, a cheque for £5 as an inducement to him to show Benjamin favour in relation to houses built or to be built by Benjamin for ex-soldiers to whom loans had been made or would be made by the department. A plea of guilty was entered. Mr. A. T. Donnelly, for the Crown, said the charge was laid under section 3 of the Secret Commissions Act, 1910. Benjamin was a builder in Christchurch, and was engaged in building houses for certain returned soldiers who had procured loans from the Crown Lands Department. Stuart, a valuer, passed the plans and then passed the buildings as being completed. The plans were left at the offices of the department for Stuart's perusal. On December 6 Benjamin asked Stuart to call at his office. There Benjamin explained to Stuart that he was going to build houses for ex-sol-diers. Benjamin's conversation was disjointed, but eventually he began writing, and then handed a cheque for £5 to Stuart. An Imaginary Loan. " This is no good to me," Stuart told Benjamin. To this Benjamin replied: That's all right. Don't you remember the money I Dorrowed from you ?" Stuart denied that he had lent any money to Benjamin. Stuart took the cheque and explained the position to his superior officer. When questioned about the transaction later, Benjamin said he had given the cheque as a Christmas box. The money was not tendered for services given. The serious aspect of the matter, added Mr. Donnelly, was that the defendant as a builder gave a cheque to a man who supervised the actual buildings. • It was admitted by the defendant that the cheque •was handed over for corrupt purposes. A bribe was offered. Tho maximum penalty for such an offence was £50. The amount of money involved was small, but the defendant attempted to interfere with a man who had to see that Government money was properly spent, and see that ax-soldiers who obtained loans pj'ere properly protected. i Mr. M. J. Gresson, for Benjamin, submitted that the plea of guilty did not mean the money had been given for a corrupt purpose. The plea was necessitated by tho width of the section, which was wide enough to cover a man's act in giving a case of pipes at Christmas. A Prompt Official. Any inference that the money was given as a bribe must go by the board. Stuart, unlike many other Government servants, was extremely prompt. He had rendered great assistance by passing the plans ana attending to his duty so promptly. Counsel admitted that it was a wrong payment, but it was not for corrupt purposes. The money was to be drawn by open cheque, and Benjamin had admitted everything. It was not a" bribe. The Magistrate: He may have chosen the wrong man In giving his decision the magistrate said that when a man was found endeavouring to suborn servants from their duty and to create an unfair position between himself and others, he should be punished. The maximum penalty was very small. It seemed to him that Benjamin gave Stuart an opportunity to take the cheque under a lie. Stuart handed the money over to his superior officer. It seemed to the magistrate that the defendant had rightly pleaded guilty to giving the money with tha idea of obtaining favour. He could only assume that Benjamin gave Stuart the cheque to get him to approve of the plans.