SECRET COMMISSION CASE

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 161, 3 April 1920, Page 8

SECRET COMMISSION CASE

$ PEARN FINED £25 CHARGE OF ABETTING FAILS INTERESTING CROSS-EXAMINA-TION, At the Magistrate's Court on Thursday, Mr. E. Page, S.M., delivered judgment in the "secret commission" case brought against Frank Montagu Pearn, traveller. Pearn was charged with having corruptly given to {Richard Sydney Gilkison, an officer of tho Tourist Department, the sum of £3 as a reward for procuring an advertisement by the Department in the periodical "Wheeling." Mr. P. S. K. Macasse.y appeared for the Crown and Mr. M. Myers for the defendant. After reviewing the facts of the case, Mr. Page dealt with the grounds; urged by counsel for defendant in answer'to the charge. "Firstly, counsel stated," said Mr. Page, "that it had not been shown that the act was done corruptly. It was true that the gift was first mooted after the order for the advertisement had been placed, so that it could not have influenced Gilkison in the placing of the particular order. It must be remembered, however, that the Department had on previous occasions placed orders for advertising with defendant's firm, and it is a reasonable inference that other orders were likely to be solicited in the future. Looking at the facts and at the manner in which the payment was made I think it is clear that this act must be held to hnve been corruptly done. "Secondly, counsel contended that Gilkison did not procure the advertisement. The evidence showed that the defendant in his' efforts to secure the advertisement dealt entirely with Gilkison. Gilkison did, indeed, before placing tho order, have to submit the matter to Mr. Wilson, ibut so far as the defendant is concerned it was Gilkison who procured the order.-, " . . : Thirdly, counsel contended that to bring a case within the section there must be evidence of a payment or a promise to nay made prior to the doing of the act, for the doing of which a payment is to 'be made; I do not think that the section is limited to such cases. • . . In my opinion, therefore, none of the grounds urged on behalf of the defendant can be'upheld, and he must be convicted." Mr. Myers then nroceeded to address the Court 011 the question of penalty, And submitted that the circumstances of the case did not warrant the imposition,of 1 severe fine. A merely nominnl penalty, he contended, would be sufficient to meet the case. Mr. Macassey pointed out that the offence was a serious one. and referred His Worship to the penalt- proscribed bv the Act. ■ .His Worshin imposed a fine of <£2a and costs £3 14(5. Mr. Myers then asked the. Court to fix security for apneal, as lie intended to recommend that the question of law should be tested. Security for enpeal was fixed at the nmount of the fine, plus costs and plus i£lo, a* total, of ,f3B lte. Case Against Thomas Dismissed. The case against Arthur Bees Thomas, company manager, was then taken: Defendant' was charged with aiding and ■ abetting the commission by M. Pearn of an offence against section 3 of tho Secret Commission. Act, by giving to Richard S. Gilkison tho sum of X 3. Mr. Macassey prosccutcd, . and Mr. Jl'vers defended. Thomas C. It. Cox, late managing editor of "Wheeling,"'said that'lie discussed with Thomas the advertisement supplied by the Tourist Department and Thomas said: "Oh yes, Pearn fixed that, but wo have to pay .£5 out of it, to ?omo man down there." It was tho prac-, tic-e to pay commissions to casual canvassers, but witness did not know of any such payment being mads to Pearn, who. was a permanent employee 011 a salary. He resigned his position, with Hope Gibbons, Sons and >T. B. Clarkson, as lie disapproved of the payment to Gilkison. ' Bribery Alleged. When Mr. Myers proceeded to crossexamine witness with reference !to a conversation lie had with a Mr. Pickard about the Tourist Department's advertisement, witness exclaimed: "Look here, Mr. Myers, you.offered to bribe me to. give false evidence. Mr. Macassey lias got the letter." . . Mr. Myers displayed great indignation and paid: "A more monstrous suggestion was never made. I have uevei; seen the man in my life before." Continuing, Mr, Myers said that the witness had brought an action against Hope Gibbons, Sons, and J. B. Clarkson for wrongful dismissal. .As a solicitor for the firm counsel desired to make a compromise if possible, and certain correspondence took place between himself 011 behalf of the firm and Mr. Von Ilaast 011 liehalf of witness. This correspondence wns without prejudice. In these lctte'-s possible offers were made, but entirely without prejudice. Cox knew as well as anyone else that anything done without prejudice was without prejudice. "To Bayi that I or anyone else offered you a bribe is monstrous—it's a deliberate lie." Mr. Myers then proceeded to crossexamine the witness Cox on the matter. You are referring to a letter written without prejudice to your solicitors ? — Witness replied that he was referring 10 a letter which the Crown Prosecutor had. Were you not advised by your own eolioitors that it was without prejudice? —''No." 1 'Bovyou swear that?—"Yes-." Mr. Myers (to the Magistrate): I think Your Worship should take a note of that, so that there will be no difficulty later. Do you mean to say that Mr. Yon Haast gave you a copy of a letter without prejudice for the purpose of taking it to the police ?-"No; the police asked uie to get a copy." Who asked you?—" Mr. Eawle." You insist upon it that you are telling the truth?—" Yes." ' You will pardon me if I decline to accept you at that valuation? "I have not finished with you yet." Counsel: Did not Mr. Pickard inform you that he had placed y6ur proposal with reference to the Tourist Department's advertisement before the directors, and that the latter would not hear of it?—" No." . And did you. not then say that it was only what you anticipated; that the firm would not .spend any money and yet expected the paper to .go ahead?—" No." Witness said that on November 20 Thomas informed him that the directors had decided to make a change in the management of the paper with a viewto making it a payable proposition. Witness was advised to seek another position, and when successful to tender his resignation. He had a conversation with Pickard, but did not say that 110 would "get even" with Thomas. If Pickard said that it would be untrue. Ho did not suggest anything to Pearn about offering .a commission to secure the advertisement from tho Tourist Department. He saw Mr. Hope Gibbons 011 November 20, when he discussed the proposed change in the management of "Wheeling." ' Mr. Myers: Did you not say to Mr. Gibbons, "Unless you are prepared to discharge Thomas I will lay an. information with the Government Departments and!with tho police"?—" Not as definitely as that." \nd that such an event would reflect very materially on the company's business? —"Yc6." Did not Mr. Gibbons tell you that he regarded tho threat as blackmail, and that he would not discuss the matter further?—" Not exactly, but the word 'blackmail' was mentioned." I Witness explained to the Court that, he mentioned something to the efl'ect that the matter would not_ look too well if it came before the public. lie had askedMr. Gibbons 'to treat the matter as confidential. Mr. Myers: Did you not say to Mr. Gibbons, "You will have 110 proof of a threat, as we arc alone, and I will state that 1 canio to see you about a different matter"?—" Yes, words to that effect." Mr. Macassey .objected to the line of cross-examination, but tho Bench upheld Mr. 'Myers's contention that it was proper because it was directed at the credibility of the witness.

Did you not tell Mr. Gibbons that you had saved some money, and that in addition you had had a sum of i'SOO left to you, nil of which you would use, to gain your ends, even if you had to sell newspapers afterwards?—" No. I had a conversation with reference to the matter, but it was not on those lines." Polios Informed. You gave certain information to the police?—" Yes—but first of all to the Tourist Department." He had asked Detective-Sergeant Eawle's advice. In giving information to the Government Department and to the police did you do it for spite?—" No." "Well, why?—"l was afraid of'the information leak-in? iout. I had been connected with the newspaper for so long, and I had put in my resignation." I ask you whether the information you gave was dictated by spite or whether it was by high moral grounds ?—"No—fear of' the thing leaking out." You knew of the- payments early in November ?—" Yes." And according to what you now say you had reason to suspect it before that?—"l had heard a suggestion." Yet your fear did not impel you to give any information to the authorities until after November 20. and your interview with Mr. Thomas?— Witness's answer was not clear. He 'mentioned having had an interyiew about the payment of secret commission with his iirm, and later on confidential talk with De-tective-Sergeant Rawle. Gifts that Witness Received. Is it not a fact that you yourself have received payments and gifts from Mr. Slade without the knowledge of your principals ?—"Yes." [Mr. Slado is the printer of the journal "Wheeling."] ' You received payments from time to time from Slade?—"Yes. They were too small to talk about." * In explanation of these payments and gifts, witness told the Court that Mr. Slader never induced him to give l.im any business. He had worked with Mr. Sled© for about five years, and. had received Christmas boxes from him. Your principals did not know?—" They were too trivial to talk about." One tof tho gifts was of dM?—"Yes." "What for?— Witness stated that Slade used to smoke witness's cigarettes, and the money was to reimburse him. In any ease, tho gifts or payments were not secret commissions. Counsel: I think on His Worship's ruling to-day tlicy are. Do you know the Goldberg Advertising Agency?—" Yes." ' * I think "Wheeling" had quite <1 lot of business with the agency?—" No." How much? ,£2oo?—'"No," Oh, I hnve the accounts. There you are. Did you receive cheques from the agency or from Mr. Goldberg?—"Yes, from Mr. Goldberg for some confidential information." Did you receive any suits of clothes or money for suits of clothes from Goldberg?—"l received money from him for work done." How many times?-"Probahly twice." If the accountant states that you received Mr.. Goldberg's private cheque as commission for work received from llopo Gibbons, Sons, and 'J. B. Clarkson, is that correct?-—"No." Very well. You .left the company's employ in November?—" Yes."' Did you meet Slade in Courtenay Place in February and complain to him that he had not given you. the customary present?—"l said, 'I have not collected that account from you yet.'" Did you have ail account against him ? —"Yes, for the cigarettes."' The Bench: Do, you mean that seriously Mr. Cox?—" Yes. Slade used to smoke hundreds of my cigarettes. Tho money was not for any business transaction." A Reporter's Railway Ticket. Counsel: Do you know Mawlen Eae?— "Yes." What is he?—"An operator at lite Eastern Cable Company." I think that you applied to the Railway Department for a reporter's ticket for this man?—"A temporary reporter's ticket." And the Eailwny Department called upon you for ail explanation ?—''No." fou know that the company have not paid?—"No, the Eailway' Department Jiave not complained to me." You have discussed this matter of secret commission with Pearn ?—"Yes." Jiave you said fo Pearn that you did not mean him any harm ?—''Yes. I iold; him thati" ' Did you tell him that if lie approached Detective-Sergeant Eawle,. Eawle would make a proposition to keep him out of trouble?—"l did not put it that way. I said lo him that if ho saw a certain person— — _ Counsel: Meaning Eawle? Witness: Yes—ho would keep out of trouble. Counsel: Exactly. Counsel: Did you say in tho presence of a man named Talbot that it was "not you (meaning Pearn) I'm after, but Thomas"?—"l have no knowledge of it. There was so much tittle-tattle going on that I could not. remember what was said.", , Will, you swear that you did not use these words: "I admit I'm after Thomas and not I'earn"?—'"l cannot swear—l cannot remember." Th Ore was no other ■ evidence for the Crown. 'Mr. Myers submitted that ho should not be called upon to proceed further. No twelve .reasonable men would think of convicting Thomas on the evidence before the Court, and lie submitted that the case should bo dismissed. Information Dismissed. Mr. Page held that there was insufficient evidence to say that Thomas was a party to the transaction, and the case would'be dismissed.