BUYER ACQUITTED

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 19, 17 October 1942, Page 3

BUYER ACQUITTED

No Bribe Proved In Woolworths’ Case After a retirement of only threequarters of an hour, a jury in the •Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday, returned a verdict that Cohn Douglas McKenzie, aged 34, former buyer ot Woolworths (N.Z.), Ltd., was not guihy of the charge of accepting approximately £6O in the nature of a bribe and contrary to the Secret Commissions Act. I he charge was a rare one in which proceedings are instituted only by authority of the Attorney-Oeiwral. The Hearing occupied two days before Mr. Justice Blair. The offence was alleged to have taken place in July, 1941, in connexion with the purchase of 2139 yards, of casement doth from Robert Leeds Tasker. .Mr. W. 11. Cunningham conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr. F. W. Ongley represented accused. For the Crown, it was stated that 2139 yards of casement cloth were dispatched from Woolworths’ bulk store to 11. IV. Airey and Co.. Ltd.. Auckland, in July last year. The Wellington representative of that firm was R. L. Tasker, who sold to W. R. Nairn, a registered wholesaler, this cloth, for £249/11/--Mr. Cunningham said a receipt would be produced to show that McKenzie bought this back from Nairn on behalf of woolworths. The total amount paid for the material was £294/2/3. Surplus goods were occasionally sold for AVoolwortns by a buver. Raymond John Watts, who had the right, to do this. He had since pleaded guilty to defrauding the company. Due to import restrictions manufacturers were able to get larger quotas of piece goods than merchants, and the manufacturers obtained their supplies on the understanding that garments were made. If they were found to be disposing of material imported for manufacture, there might be serious trouble. However, it would be shown that there was a good market for piece goods if cash was paid and no records kept. It would be stated by Tasker that he thought the casement cloth was surplus. Tasker agreed to buy the cloth after being told by Watts that McKenzie might •e wanting it. The Grown did not suggest that MeCtasL* knew be >«• buying back Wool-

worths’ goods, Mr. Cunningham said. It would be shown that Tasker paid Watts £240 in cash in accused’s presence, and paid accused a proportion of the proceeds in connexion with the transaction. It was not suggested that McKenzie knew the whole truth. Three witnesses, Francis Herbert Giles, manager of Woolworths, Hobert Leeds Tasker, and 'William Jtobert Nairn, gave evidence similar to that heard in the Magistrates’ Court. Tasker said he had been told -by Watts that the casement cloth came from an Auckland manufacturer; he had been authorized by his firm to undertake commissions on his own behalf.

Appearing in Air Force uniform, Raymond John Watts, at present serving a sentence for defrauding Wool worths, said on the second day of the hearing that he had not told McKenzie the system being worked, but he may have said that the way he was making money was not “above board.” He thought be told accused that the casement cloth was Woolworths’. . • . Giving evidence for the first time in the series of charges regarding dealings with Woolworths, Colin Douglas McKenzie said 'he did not know the dealings Watts referred to when Watts ofiered to lend him money. lie declined, a loan, but Watts later gave him £2OO in notes. He understood that the £OO received from ■Watts several days after the order for the cloth was placed was from one ot Watts’, deals; he was - not told it was liecause he had bought the doth. _ Cross-examined by Mr. Cunningham, McKenzie said that prior to the deal in easement cloth he knew that M atts wasmaking money in addition to his salary, but he did not know that. M oolworths stock was involved. Altogether he received £520 from Watts. "1 would not say that my conscience was clear, because these payments worried me quite a bit,” accused' said. . There was no evidence of a bribe being offered or accepted, submitted Mr. Oneley in his address to the jury. Even it McKenzie knew that Watts was making money out of the sale of materials that was not sufficient to bear out the allegntions; it was necessary to prove that ticeused knew the payment was associated with the purchase of the cloth from liißker. The Crown did not suggest that McKenzie had been dishonest in buying the cloth, said Mr. Cunningham, who asked the jury to accept accused's stat<* ment to the police that the £OO was ‘part of the rake-off.”