ALLEGED BRIBERY OF AN M.P

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 819, 17 May 1910, Page 5

ALLEGED BRIBERY OF AN M.P

"A MOST IMPROPER PEE." [By Telegraph.—Press Association*' Auckland, May IG. A question arising out of the alleged bribery of a .member of Parliament was argued before Mr. Justice Edwards in tlio Supreme Court, in tlio ease Cicorge Hutchison v. J. G. Haddon, a summons for delivery of documents in defendant's possession, over which a solicitor's lien was claimed. Plaintilt and defendant wero in practice as partners, and while the former was absent in South Africa defendant transacted certain business, and, it is alleged, paid a small fee, by arrangement, to a member of Parliament to get a petition expedited through Parliament. It was stated that although claimant agreed in writing to the payment of the fee, .ho refused to reimburse respondent, who • refused to deliver the documents until the money was paid, Mr. R. Keid, representing Haddon, saiil Mr. Justice Edwards, in Chambers, had described this payment of a fee as bribery. He explained that a number of people had lost property they. were ( supposed to receive from tthe Government. Through some mistake in a Government office a lease went astray, and the property was lost. The fee, paid was moro in the nature of an expedition fee to secure similar treatment to that accorded in other cases. Haddon did not 'tTXteS Timber of Parliament.—who, ho believed, was a farmer—receiving a fee from a respectable member of the Bar probably thought there could be 110 wrong in accenting it. Payment of such a fee was most improper, and he would not assist any practitioner t in recovering money paid to a member of Parliament to secure his services. The payment was improper, but Mr. Hutchison had not said it* should not have been made, and ho should acknowledge it. Mr. Richmond said his client was prepared to repay the amount under certain conditions. His Honour made an order for delivery of the documents. Claimant's counsel did not ask for costs. 3owt. of acrevmrr