SECRET COMMISSIONS ACT.

Hokitika Guardian, 27 March 1920, Page 2

SECRET COMMISSIONS ACT.

A CHARGE OF CORRUPTION. fl’Ell TRESS ASSOCIATION.— COPYRIGHT.J WELLINGTON, March 26. This afternoon Mr E. Page S.M. heard a case brought by the Police under the Secret Commission Act. Frank Montague Pearne, a traveller was charmed was charged that he did corruptly give to an agent of the Crown ill respect of the business of the Department of Tourist and Health Resorts, a gift of the sum of £3, as a reward for having done an act in relation to the business of the Crown, to wit, the act of procuring by tlie said Department of an advertisement in a periodical publication “Wheeling.”

.Arthur Ries Thomas, the Company's manager was charged with aiding and abetting the Commisson by F. M. Pearne, of the offence against Section 3 of Secret Commission Act, by giving an agent the sum of £3. M r Macassey who appeared for the Crown, said tlie defendant was employed as canvasser for the publication “Wheeling.” He saw the agent at the Tourist Office and secured an advertisement costing £3. After the advertisement was arranged for. Pearne saw tlie agent in the street and offered him money which lie refused to take. Tlie agent was advertising clerk in the Tourist Department. Later Pearne saw the agent and gave him an envelope which contained three £1 notes. ,Hu agent sent hack the money later on by cheque.

Thomas C. 11. Cox. said ho was employed as* managing editor of “Wheeling” until the first week in November last, when he rescued. Some time in October, Pearne came into the office and asked for a plain envelope which was given him. Then Pearno rang up the agent at the Tourist Office and asked the latter to meet him (Pearne) in a quarter of an hour. Some time late: Penrne told witness that he gave the agent some money which be was glad to receive.

Before the Public Service Commissioners who held nil investigation Pcarno had said that the money was a present from Thomas and witness to the agent. > To Mr Myers (Department Counsel) As far as witness wins award, Pearnc had not received a commission on the advertisement. Prior to this Peaine was working on salary. Mr Myers for the defendant said that the charge was that on November Bth Pea me did “corruptly” give to an agent C 3 for “procuring” an advertisement. The agent did not procure

the advt. and tlie advertising contract was made on Oct. 21st. No payment was made and no payment had been suggested up to that time. The first suggestion was made on or about Nov. 2nd or 3rd. some time after the contract had been concluded. Therefore there could be an offence, the person paying the money must have done so corruptly. There were two reasonable and possible inferences to be drawn, one guilty and one innocent. The Court knew that the innocent inference must ho .drawn. There must have been payment about the time the contract was made or there must have been an agree monk or offer before the contract was made. To take a payment, aferuarcls the payment or promise payment must he in the nature of a reward. A payment of this kind was responsible, hut it was quite another thing to suggest that the payment was an offence against the statute. The contract for the advertisement was not made by Poarne ;r ' : gent. The contract was

fixed by Mr Wilson, head of the Department and there was no payment or any suggestion of payment when, the contract was ado. Counsel concluded by claiming that the information should he dismissed. The Magistrate reserved his decision. A case against Thomas was adjourned sine die,