A BETTING PROSECUTION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13421, 23 October 1905, Page 4 (Supplement)

A BETTING PROSECUTION

ALLEGED INTERFERENCE WITH THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.

DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE.

IFiou Oto Own Corbeseokhent.) AVELLINGTON, October 12. ■When tlio Minister of Justice presented the evidence of the recent Police Commission to the House of Representatives this afternoon Mr Taylor seized the opportunity to refer to matters in conncction with a, prosecution against a Hamilton telegraph operator at Auckland. The case was ono in which an operator was charged with manipulating telegrams regarding betting transactions with the firm of Barnett and Grant, and the latter firm was charged with a breach of the gaming laws. Mr Taylor said a curious feature of the cn.se •was that after the inspector in Auckland laid the information the commissioner sent a. telegram telling him to withdraw it as quietly as possible. The inspector tried to carry out the wishes of his commissioner, but the magistrates refused to allow the information to be withdrawn. 'Iliat, ho bold, was a, most improper attempt to interfere with the course of justice. When tlio first magistrate refused to allow the withdrawal of the information the inspector went to a second magistrate, who said be regarded the action of the commissioner as most improper, and one that lie would bo no party to. Having failed with two magistrates the inspector went to the Crown Prosecutor, and the latter took up the same position. Eventually the prosecution was proceeded with, and was dismissed on a technicality. Messrs Barnett and Grant claimcd that they were justified in trying to get the prosecution quashed because they had made an arrangement with the Postal Department that whatever tho Tesu'.t of the investigation, if it were discovered that they were guilty of a violation of tho gaming laws they were not to be prosecuted. Only the telegraph officials were to bo prosecuted. The telegrams referred to had been sent from the racecourse after the races had been tun, but wore timed before the starting of the races. Mr Taylor's main point was that there had been an improper attempt by the Commissioner of Police to interfere with an action that was before the courts of the colony. The firm he had referred to had offices and a staff of clerks in some of the principal cities, and were doing an enormous belting business right under the eyes of the police. The Postmaster-general said that the facts

were that a telegraph officcr at Hamilton was charged with having committed a breach of the regulation in regard to the sending of certain telegrams, and in order to enable the department to determine -whether a lireaeh of duty had been committed it was necessary to obtain information from the persons who received the telegrams. These

persons were in the position of not being bound', to give the information, and the ' officer of the department at Ohristchuroh, who investigated the case, informed the firm that if it gave the information it would 1m regarded as confidential. Tim action had been approved by the department, but in the course of the subsequent proceedings the Polico Department decided that Messrs Burnett and Grant should also be prosecuted, and the information was laid accordingly. On it being pointed out, however, to the Polico Department that the information given by Messrs Barnett and Grant was obtained in confidents© the application was made to withdraw the case. Th© information which had been given by Messrs Barnett and Grant was necessary for the protection of the public in respect to the maintenance of the purity of the telegraph service, and persons who gavo such information in confidence should bo protected. If the confidence had not been respected it would have been a broach of faith.

Mr Herries £aid that Sir J. G. Ward had cast a severe reflection upon the Department of Justice by his reference to "a. breach of faith." The Police Department appeared to havo ignored the agreement- • Postal Department. J'tnwT Sa l? at whcn Police instituted the proceedings against Barnett ?i ,nr y , "' cro Ilot ill possession of the full faefs of the case. Had they been seized of the full facts the proceedings would never have been instituted. Mr A. L. D. Fraser complained that high omcials have disclosed information to Mr Taylor that they should not have disclosed. That was most improper.—(Mr•. Arnold: ' Hear, hear.") He thought it would bis a good thing if they would get rid of 90 o per cent, of their inspectors if such a Btate of affairs prevailed. Ho asked what had Sir Ward done with regard to that contemptible creature who recently gave information to Mr Bedford He did not know, what' the civil service was coming to if it was allowed to go on without these men being punished. Mr Ell said telegraphists in Cbristohurch Jiad been-concerned in a similar transaction. So proceeded to comjjlaig that the Tele-

graph Department was being made use of in conncction with the betting evil, when he was ruled out of order. Mr Baumc said that the statement made by Mr Taylor gave a very grave aspect to tlio matter. It was evident that somebody bad disclosed official information of a confidential nature. He was quite certain that the information had not come from either of the magistrates at Auckland, or from the Crown Prosecutor in that city. If, as it seemed, the information had been disclosed by persons employed in the .Justice Department, the sooner tlicy found it out and the sooner such officials were dismissed the better. The Minister of Justice in reply defended the action of his department, and said that an unwarranted reflection had been mailo by Mr Taylor on the Commissioner of Police and himself. The action taken in the case was quite justifiable, and was warranted by precedent. As to the remarks of Mr Banme, he could only say that he was not going to set up an inquiry on the strength of such vague statements as had been made. Mr Banme said he had made no complaint against any&ody; be had only pointed out that confidential information had apparently been disclosed by somebody, and the department should inquire as to how it bad become known.

Mr M'Gowan repeated that he would not set up an inquiry in regard to general statements of this nature, but any definite charge would be inquired into. The department was not afraid of the closest inquiry.