ALLEGED OFFER TO ACCEPI A BRIBE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7869, 3 August 1911, Page 1

ALLEGED OFFER TO ACCEPI A BRIBE

FARMER BEFORE THE COURT

A unique case, tho first’of its kind in New Zealand, and probably tho first that has corno before -a court anywhere, occupied tho attention of Air W. G-. Riddell, S.AL, in the Alagistrato’s Court yesterday. Patrick Janies Alurphy, a farmer, of Raketapauma (near Taihape) was called upon to answer the following charge:— That on February 28th, 1911, at Wellington, ’lie offered to acfcepb money as an inducement to abstain from bidding as an intending purchaser of a license of the following Crown lands; Tho pastoral run of about 1400 acres in tho Raketapauma block, being part section 3 of section 4, block 13,. Aloawhaugo sur- , • vey district; p-art section 4 of sections 5,6, and 7, block 3, Alauugaretn survey distinct;’ and part section 3 of sections 4 and 5, block

7, Maungakaretu survey district. Chief 'Detective Broberg prosecuted, and slr T. M. WHford appeared for defendant. THE ALLEGED OFFER. Edvard AA’ilberfoss Spooner, farmer, of Raketapauina, said that in 1904 ho secured a seven-years’ lease of the pastoral nm of 1440 'acres mentioned in the information. The land was a portion of tho Raketapauma block and tho upset rental was £75 per annum. The run was a national endowment, and witness’s lease expired on February 28th, 1913. On February 2Sth last witness was at tho office of tho Commissioner of Crown Lands in Welling-, ton for tho purpose of bidding for-tho run. Murphy was also at the office. Accused approached witness, who was in company with a Mr Shaldors, and asked him to shake hands. Witness replied • that he did not care about that, and a few minutes later accused said : “If you won’t shake hands with me would you condescend to speak to mo for a few minutes.” Witness agreed, and they stepped from the Commissioner’s door to a bench in the lobby, and accused said: “ You aro a man 1 with a large family and so am I.” Ho then asked witness to give him his (witness's) cheque for £2OO or ho would givo witness his cheque for £2OO. Witness replied that he could not entertain it.

The chief detective: What did he nsk you to give him the cheque for?— Witness: To stand off bidding. He also said I was not to appoint anybody to bid on my behalf. I refused him, and told him I would have nothing to do with it. Witness then went in and made a complaint to tho Commissioner, and then returned to the lobby. Ho called Mr Shalders and asked Murphy to repeat tho offer. Murphy repeated in Shaldcrs’s presence that ho would take witness’s cheque for £2OO and not hid, ox he would give witness a cheque for £2OO. and ho was not to bid. Shortly afterwards the run' was put up for tho auction of the license iu tho Crown Lauds Office, t Murphy was in the room, and witness heard the Commissioner read to him the section of tho Act dealing with bribery. He also read out tho particulars of tho nm and the conditions of the sale. Murphy said, in front of tho Commissioner, that witness had tempted him. He also said that his limit q,s regards Lidding for tho run was £2OO. Murphy and the witness were tho bidders for the section, and the bidding was caa - - ried to £lB2 or £lB3, at which price it was loiooked down to Murphy, who stated that ho was bidding for himself and a man named Carlton. After tho salo tho Commissioner held an inquiry. and witness, Shalders. and a Mr Watt made statements. The statement made by witness then was tho same as ho had just made in the box. After the persons named had given evidence Murphy made a statement, and, as near as witness could remember, ho said that witness had tempted him with tho offer. The chief detective: Hid you at any timo make such an offer to Murphy?— Ho. Who first, broached tho subject to you?—Murphy. ABOUT THE LANB. Mr W'ilford: Have yon got a vendetta against Murphy ?—No. The nm, witness continued, was at present occupied by him, and his leaso would expire next February. Mr W’ilford: The effect of Murphy buying the lease will be to turn, you out?—Yes. Hid you punch him in the eye, causing him to have two stitches put in ? Yes, in retaliation. Witness did not have a nm of 11C0 acres of Maori land for grazing purposes, but it adjoined bis run and there were no fences. Ho did not try to get. his wife, throngn her Maori relatives, to stop Murphy getting the land and so that witness could hold it.

Mr Wilford: ~DM Murphy get the Maoris to let him have the land for his sheep and were you as a result deprived of it?—-No. Are your sheep miming on this piece of Maori land ?—There may he , a few. Will you swear it? —No.. I won't swear it.

Do you know that Murphy’s sheep are on tho run ?—Yes.

Do you know that Maoris have given Murphy permission to run his sheep on

AUCTION OF GROWN LANDS LICENSE

COMMITTED TO SUPREME COURT FOR TRIAL

the nm to tho exclusion of yours ? I do notxknow it for a, fact. AVitness denied that ho had got into trouble jiboub some sheep. Ho had not been prosecuted for obtaining the sheep or como timber by means of false pretences. Ho had been proceeded against for - not keeping proper books. Ho had not paid for all the sheep. Ho had gone bankrupt. Air AVilford : Do you hate Alurphy ? —No.

Would you do him a bad turn if you could?—No.

Did you hear Shalders’s statement in tho Commissioner’s office that you offered Alurphy £2OO and he agreed to take it ?—I cannot recall it.

Will you deny that Carlson stated he heard yon ask Alurphy to take £2OO not to bid ?—No; I do not remember what Carlson said.

Did you hear Alurphy say you bad offered him £2OO ?—Yes. Did you offer £2OO to Alurphy?—No.' Did you ask him if he would take £2oo?—No. AA'itness had not asked Alurphy if ho was going to bid for the run.

_ When you wont out of the Commissioner’s office to make Alurphy repeat the statements who put you up to it ? The Commissioner asked me to do it.

What did tho- CommissionoW say to you?;—He asked me to get somebody and get hint to repeat it. Did you know'it was a crime? —No.

To Chief-Detective Broberg: Witness did not lay the information in this case. Ho told the Commissioner of tho offer made to him by Murphy, and the Commissioner told him to get Murphy l , to report it Ai' the presence of a witness. There was; nothing said about catching or trapping Murphy. When witness struck Murphy in tho eye it was tho latter who started the trouble. OTHER EVIDENCE.,

Francis Frederick Shalders, auctioneer, stated that he was present at the Lands Office on February 28th last. He went in company with Mr/ Spooner, who was an acquaintance of his. Witness heard Murphy offer to shako hands with Spooner, and afterwards saw them conversing for some little time. Witness heard scraps of the conversation, and heard Murphy ask Spooner to givo him his cheque for £2OO and he would stand down. Spooner refused, and latex went into the Commissioner’s room. When ho returned he asked witness to go with him, and they met Murphy in company with Carlson. Spooner said to Murphy: “Aro you still willing to take my cheque for £200?” Murphy replied that ho was willing. They then went into the room where the sale took place. The Commissioner accused Murphy of attempted bribery. Murphy denied the accusation, and accused Spoiner of making-tho offer to him. To Mr 'Wilford: AVitness did not have a clear recollection of-the actual words, used by Murphy to Spooner or by Spooner to Murphy. Ho was sure Spooner said to Murphy: “ Are you still willing to take my cheque for £200?”

John David AVatts, draughtsman in tho Crown Lands Office, stated that when Spooner and Murphy returned after having the conversation ho heard Murphy say: “ AVell, will you accept my cheque for £2OO ?” Spooner did not reply. To Mr-Wilford: Witness did tell the Commissioner that ho - knew Murphy by his whiskers. FIRST OF ITS KIND.

James Mackenzie, Commissioner of Crown Lands, stated that tho kind referred to in tho information was Crown land, the license <?f 'Which was sold by him on February 28th. Ho conducted an inquiry into a, complaint made by Mr Spooner. To Mr W’ilford; Witness had_ never heard of a prosecution of this kind in New Zealand or in the world. He knew this was an offence, but could not say whether either Murphy or Spooner knew it was an offenco before February 28th. 1 Mr W’ihord: Knowing that tho offence created under section 60 had never been the subject matter of a prosecution. and being ' unaware whether Murphy or Spooner know it was an offenco, and also believing that no prosecution had ever taken place under such section, why did you send Spooner out to get a witness to trap Murphy into committing an offence?— I did nothing of the kind. -Hid you send Spooner out to get Murphy to repeat it?—l.simply said it was an extraordinary thing for a man to do. -Witness added that ho did hot at first believe Spooner, who, apparently, ’ had misinterpreted what he (witness) had said. Mr W'ilford; You did not tell him to gat a witness and get Murphy to repent it?—l do not know as to that. . Hid you send Spooner out in order to got Murphy to make himself liable? —Certainly not. PREVIOUS OFFER ALLEGED.

Thomas Walter Williams. sheepfarmer, stated that while travelling in the train with Murphy about a fortnight before tho auction the latter said: “I suppose I have made an enemy of Spooner for life.” Witness asked: “Why-so?” and Murphy replied that lie was opposing Suooner for tho land. In the course of .further conversation. Murphy said.; “ You tell Spooner that if ho will giro nio £4OO,

I will draw out.” The statement was repeated before witness left the train. Dir Wilford: Who discovered you for this case? How were you dug out?— It',came out of a conversation at a sale. When Murphy delivered i tho message witness said,: “If you want £4OO, why should I not want £200.” That was merely a joke on witness’s part, hut he could not say if Murphy was joking.' This closed the case for the prosecution. THE DEFENCE. •Mr Wilford said that as there was no law actually in point in regard to such a case as this it would be as well to look at tho law. 4n section 69 of the Act appeared the offence of offering money to persons to entice theip to abstain from bidding, while section 70 provided that if the money was actually received the information would ho laid under that section and would take a separate form. Counsel, reviewed the sections at some length, and contended that defendant ' had acquiesced in a proposal hut had not made any offer or proposal. Offering to accept money was a; totally different thing to agreeing to accept it. The evidence must show that Murphy made the offer to Spooner and not that Spooner made the . offer to Murphy. The information clearly stated , that Murphy “offered to-accept money as an inducement to refrain from bidding.” ' : ! Defendant, iii evidence, stated that he, had purchased the lease of the block referred to at public auction and Would come into possession on March Ist. The 1160 acres belonging ,to the Maoris adjoined the block of 1440 acres at present held by Spooner. . Spooner ran his sheep on this block, but defendant had obtained authority from the Maoris to graze his sheep upon it. Some of Spooner’s sheep were still trespassing there. A few days before the laud sale, when and Spooner were travelling to Wellington from Raketapauma the latter asked witness it he intended bidding for the land. Witness replied in the affirmative, and expressed a wish that there would be. no* enmity, between them as a result. Mr Carlson and witness were waiting for the sale to take place on February 2Sth, when Mr Spooner came up and asked witness if ho would accept £2OO not to hid. Witness replied that ho would, and Spooner turned to Shalders, who was-with him, and said : “ Did you hear that ?” Shalders said he did - , and witness, seeing that he was being trapped, lost his temper and immediately withdrew the offer to accept. After the sale was over the Commissioner held an inquiry, and witness then made the same statement as that which he had just given the court. The statement made by Spooner with regard to the trouble at Taihape (as a result of which witness’s eye was cut) was not correct. Tho statement made by witness to Williams was made jokingly. To Chief Detective Broberg: It was Spooner who approached witness, and witness agreed to accept.

" Charles Carlson, farmer, of Raketapnum.a, arid a partner of Murphy, .corroborated tho ‘evidence of the last witness. When Murphy repudiated the agreement ho said that the charge was' concocted bv Spooner in order to prevent him (Murphy) from bidding for tho land. COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.

His Worship considered that a priina facie case had been made out. The evidence was conflicting, and it was a proper case for a jury. Defendant was committed' to Jhe Supreme Court for trial. Bail, Was allowed, self ia £SO with one surety of £50 c