Evidence of Interviews With M’sP. at Board Of Trade Inquiry

Grey River Argus, 24 November 1948, Page 11

Evidence of Interviews With M’sP. at Board Of Trade Inquiry

LONDON, Nov. 22

The managing director of Sherman's Football Pools, Harry Sherman, said he had never offered any remuneration to the assistant-secretary of the Empire Parliamentary Association, Mr David Rufus Williams, for intervention on Sherman’s behalf regarding paper allocations, when he continued his evidence at the Board of Trade Inquiry. Neither had there ever been any suggestion of Mr Williams receiving money from him. David Rufus Williams said Harry Sherman and his brother had asked him to introduce them to Parliamentarians about their affairs. They told him Stanlev had taken them to see Mr Belcher, and the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, Mr Glenvill Hall, and Mr Key. Sherman told him how Stanley had stated: “How do you think I was able to deal with the'Cardiff case, if I did not pay'for it?” Replying to Mr Gilbert Paul, K.C., for the Crown, who asked, “What was the specific purpose for which they said the money was given to Stahley?” Williams replied: “They were not very clear because they rushed through the preamble to the point that this man had used their money to bribe Ministers without their knowledge and that he had misused their money for this purpose.” Williams said that, according to the Sherman brothers, Stanley claimed that he gave money to various Ministers, including Mr Belcher.

N.Z. COMPANY MENTIONED

Questioned by Mr Pauli, Williams admitted that he was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on January 7, 1936, lor fraudulently converting sums of money to his own use. williams said he was bound over. He added: "It came about through my being the London director of company which was wound up in New Zealand, and I had to be responsible here lor the aiafirs of the company. All the moneys were repaid.” T . , Mr Justice Lynskey said: It is obvious that for a man to be bound over for this offence there must have been mitigating circumstances.” Mr Pauli questioned Williams about a cheque for £lOO which Williams received from men named Bales and Evans.

CHEQUE FOR LOANS

Williams said the cheque was for an outstanding loan. He denied that it was a payment connected with the importation of typewriters. Williams did not remember telling Evans and Bales, "Leave it to me” regarding the refusal by the Board of Trade to allow Bales and Company to import German typewriters. Williams told the tribunal he advised Mr Cross (Mr Belcher’s secretary) to report to the authorities when Mr Cross told him of the allegations he had heard about Mr Belcher.

Williams added: “This step meant a great sacrifice to me. It has cost me my job being here. I did it as a public duty.” The inquiry was adjourned.

COSTLY INQUIRY

The cost of the official inquiry into the allegations of bribery which has rivetted the attention of the British public during the past week is one of the many aspects of geenral interest in the proceedings, states A. W. Mitchell, N.Z.P.A. special correspondent. No official computation has been made, but it is stated that the various parties represented by counsel have a total daily bill of about £3OO in barristers’ refreshers and fees to the solicitors in attendance. The Treasury’s Legal Department lias to meet about £l5O daily, and the shorthand notes cost about £2O daily. In addition to the daily costs, there is the original marking in guineas on counsel’s briefs, which in the case of King’s Counsel, are not light.

WOULD GOVERNMENT BE AFFECTED?

Borne people are attempting to assess the political cost of the inquiry to the Labour Government in view of the various highly p aced members of their party being linked with it and their relations with the central figure Sidney Stanley* The most interesting comment heard last week was that Labour Partv headquarters are stated to already bl ieckoning that even if no prosecutions follow, the inquiry itself and the facts brought into the lime light may cost the Government 60 seats at the general election. . There have been one or two caie ful remarks indicating the notice being taken of the inquiry in political circles For instance, Mr Olive i Stanley ,a noted Conservative wit, remarked, in an after dinner speech. “To avoid misunderstanding, and perhaps disappointment. I must explain that I am another Stanley. He was addressing the Society of Yorkshiremen, and its president, Sir Ronald Matthews, while saluting him with the exhortation, On, Stanley, on,” added: “This quotation, I believe is not exactly popular in Government circles at the moment.