A CROWN LANDS CASE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 7, 24 August 1911, Page 5

A CROWN LANDS CASE.

"SOME PECULIAR FEATURES. (Per Press Association.! Wellington, August 23. Patrick James Murphy was charged that on February 28th lie proposed to accept a sum of £2OO from Edward Wilberfoss Spooner on condition that lie abstained from bidding at a public auction of a Crown lands license. Mr. H. H. Ostler prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr. T. M. Wiiford appeared for the accused. The case presented some peculiar features. The prisoner was indicted under section 69 of the Land Act, which makes it an indictable offence for any person to directly or indirectly offer or propose to accept or receive money as an inducement to abstain from bidding at a sale of Crown lands which have been advertised for sale by public auction. Mr. Ostler produced two newspapers to prove that the sale was advertised, but Mr. Wilford pointed out that under section 69 of the Act there was no offence unless the land was advertised for sale in accordance with section f 37 of the Act, which proved that notice of the sale should ho published in the Gazette and in a newspaper circulating in the district where the land was situated not less than one month before the sale. This was advertised in a local newspaper to take place on February 29th, 1911, whereas no such date existed. As the advertisements appeared on February 13 and 15, they were not minted one month before the date of - side.

Mr. Ostler maintained that the sale was advertised, but admitted that it was not for the statutory month. His Honour said ho could not see how Mr. V,MI ford’s objections could be successfully answered.

The facts of the ease showed that Spooner had a pastoral lease of LIDO acres near Taihape, which lease expired on February 29, 1912, and it was nut up for sale on February 28, 1911. Murphv and Spooner to ho the only persons interested in_ the silo, and in conversation the offence was alleged to have occurred. Spooner told the Commissioner, who said that if ho could get corroborative evidence ho would take proceedings. Spooner tried to induce Murphy to repeat his offer, but though something was said in the presence of witnesses about an alleged offer, it was not specifically repeated. The value of corroboration was not considerable., as the words of section 09 of the Statute make it an offence only to offer to accept a bribe not to bid. The jury returned a verdict of not <rniltv.