A LEGISLATOR CONVICTED OF BRIBERY.

Evening Star, Issue 3357, 22 November 1873, Page 2

A LEGISLATOR CONVICTED OF BRIBERY.

C. F, Jones, politics, mystery, gambling by horses, gambling by cards, gambling uy props,” gambling by “ poker,” false swear* ing in court, and tiddly win king in the Government departments are all mixed up in the action brought in the Victorian ."Supreme Court by Mr B Armitage, the contractor, against Dr L. L. Smith. The case is certainly a strange oue, and no one yet can master its ins and outa. The plaintiff was formerly a road contractor under Government, and could not get an account settled. It is alleged that the defendant, Dr L. JL. Smith, championed his case, or, as the plaintiff puts it, consented to act as a friend and go between, Mr 0. K. Jones being the Commissioner of Roads at that time. To cover any expenses that might be incurred if Armitage’s case went to arbitration, the plaintiff’ consented, at defendant’s suggestion, to give a power of attorney, authorising Dr Smith to receive the contract money, add acknowledging indebtedness to the extent of 15 )0. This debt, Mr Annit/ge says, was altogether fictitious, for he never had any transactions with Dr Smith before that date, and eiooc then their

dealings hard net exceeded Ll2, and that *«m was incurred at the doctor's last election. The plaintiff was awarded L 1,460 in 1572, hut could not draw the money from the Treasury h- cause of the power of attorney, lalcd i860; and for the purpose of removing that obstacle Armituge gave a Mr Simmons, the doctor’s agent, L 390 cash, and his son gave a bill for L2OO. Simmons got the bill discounted with Mr Levinger, but it was dishonored at maturity. r l he plaiutiff now claims the repayment of 1.50U, oa the ground that no value was received, and the payment was obtained under compulsion, 80 the case appears at present, but the defence has not been touched on yet. It will be contended that the plaintiff has received the moneys claimed in loans, or has lost them in bets with Dr >mith. The plaintiff’s case fully bore out the statement made on the opening day ; but the examination in-chief of the defendant was so greatly at variance with the plaintiff’s story, that it is evident mendacious statements have been made on one side or the other, Armitage says the LSOO houd was given to Dr t>mith in anticipation of expenses in' securing a reference of his claim against the Government to arbitration, and not for money lent or bets. Dr Smith, on theothfer hand, says, most positively, that the bond was given to cover L 320, due to him on loans, bets, and interest. As our telegrams told us yesterday, the jury preferred to believe plaintiff's witnesses, and gave Loot) damages against Dr Smith.