CORRUPTION CHARGE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16583, 16 November 1921, Page 2

CORRUPTION CHARGE.

SENSATIONAL CASE IN SYDNEY. , By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. EYDNEY. November 15. Alderman Braixlston appeared before the Police Court, charged on an information laid by Sir Allen Taylor, that while a member of the City Council he corruptly took for himself and other persona Unknown, who were also public and ministerial officers, a bribe of £25 in part, payment of a larger sum, from George Gill, as' an inducement to favour Gill and R. Bead in relation t-o contracts for tekirig supplies to the City Council. Counsel for Sir Allen Taylor. in opening the case, said that the action was taken by. Sir Allen and others for the purpose of obtaining certain information, and now he was compelled to curry th© matter through as a result of a discovery made- The prosecution would not have been immediately necessary if th© Government had seen fit to open a Royal Commission to inquire into matters the fringe of which wav onlv touched by this prosecution. Counsel continued that tenders were called by the council for the supply of half a million wood blocks, and Gill and Read were employed to tender. Gill secured an introduction to Bramstou. and the latter agreed to ascertain what was a likely figure it would be wise to tender. Gill, describing himself as an agent, gave evidence detailing a series of conversations with Bnuneton, in which lie alleged the. latter sai_i£ it w'ould be necessary to pay him commission on the contract. Witness objected to this, whereupon Bramston said the commission would not be paid by Gill or Read, but by the council, and he wrote a list of increased prices to be put in th© tender Ho also suggested that Gill should give a bank guarantee instead of a cash deposit stating That will relieve you of providing extra cash for the amount to be oaid to me.” He added : '‘l have to bny off several members of. the combine who are in opposition to my crowd.” In reply to a quostion as to liow that was managed without others knowing, he said: “ They stav away from tile council meetings.” H© also said that be had increased th© prices jn the tender by £7OO. At a subsequent interview Brainston said that the tender had been ac-' oepted, but an”objection had been lodged, which would mean a delay of a fortnight. Witness later gave him £25. During a further interview Bramston promised to secure another contract for the same number of blocks, at an increased price of ten shillings per thousand, the understanding being that witness would give Bramston’s friends £IOO each. Later. Bramston said he would accent £3OO cash and £3OO in instalment* as witness was paid bv tho council. Bramston added that if witness carried out this contract he could rely on receiving an order- for £100,<300 worth of electrical machinery.

Tho case was adjourned till Thursday