ALLEGED BRIBERY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2849, 21 October 1908, Page 34

ALLEGED BRIBERY.

FIRM OF BREWERS IMPLICATED. A CHARGE AND A DENIAL. (Frou Oub Own Correspondext.) AUCKLAND, October 15. An astonishing statement, which created somewhat of a sensation, was made by Mr E. G. B. Moss, Independent candidate for Parn'ell, at a meeting last night. He produced a sworn declaration alleging the bribery of three members of a Licensing Committee in the goldfields district by Msnsrs Hancock and Co., brewers, of Auckland^ Mr Mo«>, in the course of his speech, remarked -. There- are many rumours current about bribery and corruption in connect ion^with Licensing Committees. I have faith that some of them are correct. I have bsen challenged since I spoke at Newmarket, and) told it was cowardly to make general charges against respectable people. Well, I made them, Ind I have been ask-ed to produce to-night any proof in my power of corruption. I am not going to trouble you with trifles such as pianos and sewing machines, or even the rumour of a religious-minded brewer who presented tiie wife of one, member of a Licensing Committee with a family Bible and a harmonium. — (Laughter.) I am going to read to you the statutory declaration of an ex-hotelkeeper." Mr Moss then proceeded to > read a declaration taken before «a J.P. on October 9, and made by a former country hotelkeeper. This declaration set forth that the hotelkeeper hadi a hotel about eight years ago in a country district in Auckland, and desired to transfer the license to another centre in that district ;\ that he agreed with Messrs Hancock and Co. to find the money necessary for building and furnishing the hotel, giving the firm a mortgage over all his property ; that two years ago, under pressure, he was compelled to abandon his property to the mortgagees ; and that in an account rendered to him in 1900 were three items of £200 each and one of £100. He alleged) that this . £700 had been charged to his account, v and that he was informed that it had been paid in order to secure the approval of the Licensing Committee of the district to the transfer of the license, and, being" helpless, he had to consent to be charged with the £700. " There," continued Mr Mo£6, "is a charge made under a solemn statutory declaration. The head of the firm of Messrs Hancock and Co. is a m«n of standing in Auckland, andi I hope that the rumour will turn out to be foundationlers. At all events, he "will have the opportunity of denying it in the same 6olenm manner that tho charge is made, and if he will give me that denial I will be so pleased (hat I will give £20 to any charity the chairman like 6to mention. — (Prolonged applause.) I don't want to believe it. I will do my best not to believe it, and I hope he will be able to deny it to-morrow morning. I will send him a copy of the declaration and a photograph of the account." A Voice : Who were the rpembers ft'f the Licensing Committee? Mr Mots said he had put the names in a declaration form of denial which he was sendwng to the firm to sign. — (Loud ap- ; plause.) HANCOCK AND CO.'S REPLY. (From Our Own Corp.espondknt.) AUCKLAND, October 15. A Star reporter -waited upon Meepra Hancock and Co. to-day, and csfced the manager wlietlior the firm intended to make any reply to Mr Moss's allegations. He was furnished with the following t t«a-temsnit : — "We were aiot eurprieed to read in this monriug'e -paper the statement as made by Mr E. G. B. Mcrs, a candidate for Parnell, wlio openly stated that at same time he would try to get even wiitih tihe trade for not supporting him in his candidature for Ohnnemuri some years ago. The hotelkeeper to whom he refers -being desirous about eight years ago of obtainrinig the trajisfer of his license asked us to assist ham to j acquire a -portion of land, and also to ereot .?, new building thereon. We ajgireed to do tliae, but had no interest whatever in t*be house beyond that of a mortgagee, holding security for -moneys actually ad-ya-nced dn> the couree of our business dealings. This hotelkeeper did receive the sums of money mentioned by Mr Sloes, but these ware cash loams to himself. ! We did not foreclose on t-he m-ortgane as stated by Mr Mccs ; but as tho hcftelkeeper intimated to us thai ho could not niabe the business pay -we offered either .

to jel«use him of his i»delb/tedln«f6 of £8600 on payment by him of £7600, we thiis losing tlie cum of £1000, or to take over las 6ecuri*i€s and pay him £1000, / releasing at the same .time ether coUaiteral p.-'-ets worth about £600. The hither h© aooepiod ovier two yer-cre ago as peis agreement dated 19th July, 1906. We are quite a.greeab-le to se-U this property to anyone for lots than th« actual cost. Our business transactions with him then cam© to a clcse. Some- two or three months ugo he came to us with a threat that, unless we paid a coni>ideraible sunu of money lie would puliioly accuse us in a nuan-ner jpomowhait similar to what he has done through the irstruanemtality of Mr ■Mces, at the same time warning us tbafc •we were on the eve of a local option poll. We strdSigly xeisembed th : s conduct on his part, and -'cliara-eteirised his acitiou hi very strong terms. The person Tef erred to has also attempted to enforce a demand; by a threat of proceedings for mait'ters of apoeoiunt betw-sen us, aaud we are accordingly not to T>e drawn into a public discussion tibrough Mr Moss, vfho is probably acting as- this pei-Don's solicitor to ereiWe him to obtain evidence to sufost.nnitia'te his threatened action."