CHARGE AGAINST CRICK.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXI, Issue 1706, 23 March 1906, Page 2

CHARGE AGAINST CRICK.

TERMINATION

OF CASE,

.By telegraphy Press A'aafn,, Copyright

Reoeivod 10.10 p.m., Marob 22, Sydnoy, Moreh 22. The tiiil of Crick in tho Criminal Court on a ohurgo of corruption camo to a euddon and eenaational termination, owing to the Crown case breaking down, Tho judgo directed the jury to rc’nrn a verdici of not guilty, and (Jriok was dißoharged.

A REMARKABLE CASE

FIGHT AMONG THE LAWYERS,

telegraph, Fsresu Aca’n, Copysstgb

Received 11,18 p.m., Maroh 22. Sydnoy, Maroh 22. Tbo charge was that Criolr, aa Minister of Lands, unlawfully and corruptly received for hia own benefit £250 from Peter Close in connection with a certain land transfer,

There was a Btrong bar on oaoh side, Mr Shand, who acted as one of Close’s legal advisers during the Land Commission enquiry, leading for tho Crown, and Mr Reid

tor the dcfenco. Tho Court was orowded. Mr Reid ontered a demurrer on the ground that tho indictment contained no offenoe known to law ; that if there was an ollenco it was not properly described, and, if othorwiao oorrect, it was bad for want of dofioito particulars. After argument the demurrer was overruled.

The evidence ca'led was similar to that given at the Lands Commission, proving tho transfer to Peter Close of a packed bos.

In reply to Mr Reid, oounsel said that the evidence he propoeod to give was eimilar to that ho gave after the In demnity Act was passed. Witness then detailed a convocation with Crick, wherein the latter Baid that a lot of land agents wore getting land cases through, making a lot of money out of it, and he did not see why witness Bhould not do the same, bo long as it was legitimate, adding that ho would have nothing to do with anything shady. Coming to the payment of the £250, witness’s memory appeared more defective than when he wa3 before the Land Commission, and Mr Reid objected to leading questions being put to him. Witness said that he handed Crick the money, and tcld him to put it in his pocket, but nothing was said as to what it was for. No mention was made of the land case. Witness owed Crick no money, and it was not a lean or given. It was his own money, and he did what he liked with it. He had had monetary transactions with Crick extending over many years. He often paid him large sums. He denied that there was an understanding with Crick that he should act as land agent and share tho profits with Criolr.

This closed the Crown case. Mr Shand said that in the face of Close’s evideooe he oould not support the indictmerit. The jury, by direction of the Judge, returned a verdict of not guilty.