SUBORNING JURYMEN.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2126, 7 December 1920, Page 2

SUBORNING JURYMEN.

SERIOUS OFFENCE ALLEGED. ACCUSED COMMITTED FOB TRIAL. Press Association. PALMEESTON N., December 6. At the Magistrate's Court to-day, Thomas Martin, labourer, was charged. that bn or about November 9 he attempted to influence by a bribe a juryman named Angus Duncan Campbell in the case King v. Frederick Spencer Easton. Three other charges were also preferred against Martin of attempting to influence Charles Wm. Fuller, John Eosanowski and Edward Gilshman, Other jurymen, in their conduct. Detective Quirke prosecuted, and accused was defended by Mr A. M. Ongley. Angus Duncan Campbell, manager's assistant, Palmerston North, said that on November 9 he was in attendance at the Supreme Court as a juror. Accused was also at the court on that day, and spoke to witness, first of all in the courthouse. He asked witness if he was a juryman, and witness replied that he was. Accused did not say anything further then. After the jurymen had been discharged from duty until next morning, witness was leaving the courthouse when accused spoke to him again, and said he was present on behalf or the Easton case, and if witness wanted to make any money there was a chance for him \o do so. He told witness that Easton was a millionaire, and that he had authorised him to say that he was prepared to spend £IO,OOO to get out of the trouble that he was in. Witness told accused that he was running a pretty big risk doing things like that. Accused replied that he was prepared to take the risk because he was getting well paid for it. Witness told him that he could not at any rate stop the jurymen from doing their duty. Accused replied that there was a good deal of talk going on, and he would find out who was for Easton and who was against hiin, and that their names would be haDded in to Mr Wilford on the Tuesday night. Witness then left him. Whilst cycling in Featherston Street about 7 o'clock the same day, the accused overtook witness and they rode along together. He again mentioned the case, and witness said: "What arc you prepared to give?" Accused casually mentioned £SO. Witness again advised him that he was running a 'big risk, and that he (witness) would have nothing to do with it. When Pascal Street was reached, he just passed the time of da> and left witness. Accused cycled back. towards town. Witness had no further communication with him., Witness said he was called on the case, but was challenged. To Mr Ongley: Accused did not offer him any money, and witness saw no money with him. He did not know if Martin had £SO, and did not even know his name.

To Detective Quirke: There was no one else present when the statements ■were made. "IT WOULD PAY TO LET HIM OFF."

Edward Gilshman, carpenter and builder, said he saw the accused in court, and was approached by him before the common jury was called. Witness was sitting on a seat behind the dock. Someone tapped him on the ehoulder and said that, "whoever was on the jury in the big case it would pay them to let him off." The name or the case was not named, but it Beemed to be understood. Witness said: "I have no inclination to be on the case, and vou can take my place." Accused replied, "I wish to God I could," and again said that the man was '' well off'' and it would pay the jury to acquit him. Witness was one of the jurymen on Easton 's case. They had been sitting and had adjourned for lunch. On arrival back at the courthouse a few "minutes before the resumption, witness put his bicycle to one side of the front entrance and was walking up the steps when accused approached him and wanted to know how the case was going. Witness replied to the effect that it appeared to be about equally divided. Accused touched him on the shoulder and wanted him to come to one side. Witness refused, and said, "You ■want to be careful in things like these." Accused remarked, "Oh, I'll be careful." Accused had also said to witness on 'Friday, "Don't bring him in guilty." On the Sunday morning following the case witness had been for a walk, and on the way home met accused, who was on a bicycle. He said he was going down to the mill, and that he would "be seeing him in a few days." He did not name the person. On a later occasion witness was working in his garden and accused came across to him. He said that "Easton would like to know who were his friends on the jury." Witness said he only knew of the men on the jury, and it was not

his place to give information how the jury voted. Witness again said that he had already told him to be careful, and there were inquiries being made already. He added to accused, "That no definite offer had been made, and that he would not have accepted it if there had been." In connection with this last statement witness told accused that in the case Easton had been referred to as "a white man," and "if he could be a white man with all his money, he (witness) could be a white man without money." To Mr Ongley: Witness was merer offered money except in a general way that it would "pay the jury" to bring Easton in not guilty. He had no reason to expect that he would have received anything if the verdict was not guilty. Accused had spoken to him about MeConachie's case, and said that he knew him.

To Detective Quirke: As far as witness was personally concerned, he formed his own opinion of the case from the evidence placed before him as a juryman. He could only speak for himself on that point. Charles William Fuller, also a juryman, said he saw accused in the Court on November 9. After witness had been selected as a juror on the first case, he was accosted by accused on the footpath during the luncheon adjournment. He said, "You're one of the jurymen?" Witness said '' Yes.'' He said, '' If you are picked as a juryman on Easton's case, and bring him in not guilty, Mr Easton will see you right. He has' plenty of money.'' Witness said, " Yes, is that so!" and then mounted his bicycle and rode off, not wanting to hear anything else. There was someone with accused when the conversation took place, and witness was foreman of the jury on the Easton case, and that jury disagreed. John Bernard Eosanowski, carpenter, said he saw the accused on November 9 ai the Courthouse. Witness was on the jury in the case King v. McConachie. After the jury had given their verdict he left the Court room. Accused left the Court room at the same time. On the way to the street he said to witness, "I am glad you let that fellow off. I know he was not guilty from the start." He then said, "I suppose you would like to get on Easton's case?" Witness replied, "No, Ido not wish to get on any case. I would rather go back to work, as I am losing money by being on the jury." He then said, "It might pay you better to go on Easton's case and let him off." Witness had no further conversation with accused. A BELATED WITNESS. Detective Culloty, Palmerston North, said that-accused was present at the Criminal Court last session every day. On November 13, after having closed his defence in Easton's case,xMr Wilford left the Court room and returned in the course of a few minutes. As he was entering" the Court room door accused spoke to him, and said,'' I know another man who could give good evidence for you. He is a' steward of the Foxton Racing Club. He was in Court a few minutes ago. He can say that he never saw any of those 'Racing Calendars.' " *

Mr Tremaine objected to this portion

of the' evidence as being irrelevant. Detective Quirke: It has a bearing on the matter and it shows intent and motive.

The Magistrate: It may show motive. I will, however, note Mr Tremaine's objectitn. Continuing, witness said that Mr Wilford replied, "It's too late now," or words to that effect. About 4 p.m. on the same date, as the jury retired to consider their verdict, accused was in the passage as they passed out on their way to the jury room. He keenly watched the jurymen. Continuing, witness said he arrested accused on November 29, and charged him with the offence concerning Campbell. Accused said, "I don 't know Campbell. I never said anything to anyone except what I said to you; that was, if I was on the jury give me Amythas.". Later on, when accused was- charged with the other offences, he made no reply. When charged with trying to influence Fuller he said he did not know him, and had never seen him until the day he was on the jury. Mr Tremaine submitted, in regard to the cases, that, with the exception of Campbell's, no offences had been disclosed. There was no evidence to show that any threats or bribes were employed to influence the jurymen. Before accused could be convicted on those conversations the informations must be amended, and if they were amended to read "or by any other means" they must be borne out by evidence. The worst that had been said in respect to Gilshman's information was, "It would pay the jury to let him off." It was an expression that anyone might use. No evidence of intention to corrupt could be gathered from the other conversations. He submitted that there was a difference between "attempt" and preparation for the attempt. Had he offered money or suggested the offer, then it might have been an attempt, but accused merely mentioned that anyone could be corrupted. Accused pleaded not guilty on all the charges, and reserved his defence, sn<ing, "We will have a box on later.' He was committed .for trial at the nexi sitting of the Palmerston North Supreme Court, to commence on February 15. Bail was allowed, self in £IOO, and two sureties of £IOO eaeh.