Parliamentary Practice.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 19 May 1910, Page 4

Parliamentary Practice.

1 —~— ALLEGED BRIBERY.

A question arising out of the alleged bribery of a member of Parliament was argued before Mr Justice Edwards, at Auckland, in tho Supreme Court, in the case Georgo Hutchison v. <J. G. Haddo.ii, a summons for delivery of documents in defendant's possession, over which a solicitor's lien was claimed. Plaintiff and defendant were in practice as partners, and while the former was absent in South Africa defendant transacted certain business, and, it is alleged, paid a small fee, by arrangement, to a member of Parliament to get a petition expedited through Parliament. It was stalted that although claimant agreed in writing to the payment of the fee, he refused to deliver the documents until tho money was paid. Mr 11. lleid, representing Haddon, said Mr Justice Ed.wards, in Chambers, had described (this payment of a fee as bribery. He explained that a number of people had 'lost .property they were supposed to receive from the Government. Through somo mistake in a Government office a lease went astray, and itho property was lost. The fee paid was more in the nature of an expedition fee to secure similar treatment to that accorded in othor cases. Haddon did not Ithinik ho was doing anything wrong. M:r Justice Edwards said a member of Parliament—who, he believed was a. fanner—receiving a fee from a respectablo miember of the Bar probably thought there could bo no wrong in accepting it. Payment of such a fee was moslb improper, and he would not assist any practitioner in recovering money (paid to a member of Parliament to secure his services. Tho payment was improper, but Mr Hutchison had not said iit should not have been made, and he should acknowledge Db. Mr Richmond said his cliorot was prepared to r'opay the amount under certain conditions. His Honour made an order for delivery of tho documents. Claimant's counsel did not ask for costs.