A SERIOUS CHARGE

Hokitika Guardian, 9 December 1920, Page 4

A SERIOUS CHARGE

ALLEGED ACTEMiB TO iNELUENC'is Jurymen.

PALMERSTON N., Dec; 6. At the. MagisttJttfe’N GiiUrl to-day, Tlibiiias ifiirtiri, a labourer, was charged that oil or about November 9 he attempted to Influence by bribe a juryman, AngiiS Diiiicflh Campbell, in the case the Ring vv Frederick • Spencer Easton. Three BtlibF bharges were also preferred agriiilStAlilfUri of atlenipting to influencii CillHfiek; William Fmler; John Rosilliowiliti ilhtl Edward Gilshnah, otlibr jllfJHifilj IH tlmir rioiuluct. Defective jjfbsbctited.' Accused wdit defended! fljr dU A. AI. Ongley. Angus Dultl'ilh Garitjibbll, manager’s assistant, of PalfHtirstbii North, said that on November 9 hfc was in attendance at the SuiifCHie CriitH as a juror. Accused was also at the Court on that day, and spoke__to witness. ‘First of all in the Courthouse he asked witness if he was a juryman. Witness replied that be was. Accused did not say anything further then. After the jurymen had been discharged frem duty until next morning, witiifess has leaving the. Courthouse, when accused spoke to him again find said lib was preSert on .behalf of the Easton case, mid if wit'hess j wanted to make any money .there was. a chance for .him to do so. He told witness that Easton was a millionaire and that lie had authority from him to ■say that he was prepared to SDend £lt),bOO to ge't bdt of the trouble teat he-Was in; Witness told accused lie was running a pretty big risk- m doing a tiling like that. Accused rfcjilled that be was prepared to take the risk, beeadsfe be was getting well paid for it. .Witness told him that he could not at any fate stop jurymen from doing their duty. Acctist'd replied that there fl as a good deal of talk going on, and he would find out who was for Easton arid who’ (His against !um, and that their names would be handed in to Mr. TYilford on the Tuesday night; IVifness then left him. Whilst cycling in Featherston Street about seven o’clock tile same day accused .overibok witness, and they rode along together. He "gain mentioned the case, find witness said, “What are you prepared to give ?” Accused casually mentioned Vt :t----ness again advised him lie was running a big risk, and that lie (witness) would have nothing to do with it. When Pascal Street was reached lie just passed the time of day ftiid left witness. Accused cycled back towards town. Witness had no furflifef Communication with him. Witness said lie was c: lied on the case, but was olirtljeflged. To MivOnglcy: Accused did not offer him any money, and. witness saw no money with him. He did not know if Martin had £SO, and did not < veil know his name.

To Detective Qnirke: There was no one else present when the statements were made.

Edward Gilsbnan, carpenter and builder, said be saw accused in c< urt and was approached by him liefoie the common jury was.called. Witness was sitting on a seat behind the click. Someone tapped him on the shoulder and said that whoever was on the jury in the big case it would pay them to let him off. The name or case Was not named, but it seemed to be understood. Witness said, “I have no inclination to be on the case and you can take my place.” Accused replied, “I wish to God I could,” and again said that the man was ‘‘well off” and it would pay the jury to acquit join. Witness was' one of the jurymen on Easton’s case. They had been sitting and had adjourned for lunch. On arrival hack at tlie Courthouse, a few minutes before resumption of the case, witness put his bicycle to one "side of the front entrance, and was walking up the steps, when accused approached him and wanted to know how the case was going. Witness replied to the tlie effect that it appeared to be about equally divided. Accused touched him on the shoulder and wanted him to come to one side. Witness refused, and said, “You want to be careful in things like these.” Accused remarked, “Oh, I’ll be careful.” Accused had also said to witness on Fr day, “Don’t bring him in guilty,' On the Sunday morning following toe case witness had been for a walk, and on the way home met accused, who was on a bicycle. He said lie was going down to the mill, and that lie would “be seeing him in a few days.” He did not name the person. On a later occasion, witness was working in his garden, and accused came across to him. He said that “Easton would like to know who were his friends on the jury.” Witness said it was not his place to give information how the jury voted. Witness again said that he had already told him to be careful, and there were inquiries being made already. He added to accused that no definite offer had been made, and that he would not have accepted it if there had been.' In connection with this last statement, witness told accused that in tlie case Laston had be£n referred to as a ‘white man,” and “if he could lie a white man with’all Ids money, he (witness) could be a white man without money. To Mr Ongley: Witness was never offered money except in'a general way, that it would “pay the jury” to bring Easton in not guilty. He had no reason to expect that he would have received anything if the verdict was ‘not guilty.” Accused had spokeii to him about Ai’CoimcFiie's ease and said that lie knew hirii.

To Detective Quirke: As' far ns witness was personally concerned lie formed his own opinion of the case from the evidence placed before hint ns a juryman. Of course, lie could only speak for himself on that point, Charles William Fuller, also a juryman, said that he saw accused in the Court on November 9, after witness had been selected as a juror on the first case. He was accosted by accused on the footpath during the luncheon adjournment. Accused said, ‘‘You’re one of the jurymen.” Witness said “Yes,” He said, “If you are picked as H juryman on Easton’s case and bring him in not guilty, ijr Easton will see you right. He has plenty of money.” Witness said, “Yes, is that so?” and then mounted his bicycle and rode off, not wanting to hoar anything else. There was someone with accused when the conversation took place. Witness was foreman of the jury on the Easton case, and that jury disagreed. John Bernard Rosanowski, carpenter, said that he saw accused on November 9 at the Courthouse. Witness

wag on the jury in the case the King v. M’t'oricliie. After the jury had given their verdibt lie lefts the Court room. Accused left the Court room at the same time; On the way to the street lie said to witness, “I am glad yMi let tliiit fellow off. I knew he was not gillity from the start.” He then said “1 suppose you would like to get 011 Easton’s case?” Witfiess replied; “No. Ido not wish to get oil ririy case. 1 would rather go hack to work, as 1 ani losing money by being on the jury.” Hb tlicri siiiii “It might pay you bettel; to go on Eiistan’s case and let him off.” Witness bad no further conversation with accused.

Detective Culloty, Palmerston North; said that accused was present at the criminal Court last session every day. On November 13, after having closed bis defence ill Easton’s case Air Wilford left the Court fUclni rtfid rtstiirdbd in the course of a few minutes. As >ie uas entering the Court room door accused spoke to him and said. “I know another mdn who i-b'uld give good evidence for you. He is a steward of the boxtoii Racing Cliib. He was in Court a few minutes ago. He can say that be never saw any of those racing calendars.”

Air Tremaine objected to this portion of the evidence as being irrelevant. Detective Qnirke: It bat a bearing dri the matter, arid it shows intent and motive.

The Magistrate: It may show motive. I will, however, note -Mr Tremaine’s objection. Continuing, witness said that Mr Wilford replied, “It’s too late now,” or words to that effect. About 4 p.m. mi the same date; as the jury retired td consider their verdict, accused was in the passage. As they passed out on their Lav to the jury room, lie keenly? watched the jurymen. Continuing, -witness said he arrested accused on November 29, arid charged him with the offence concerning Campbell. Ascused said, "I don’t know Campbell. I iievfe't filld anything to anyone, except what I said to you. That was, if I was oil the jury, give me Amytlias.” Later on, when accused was charged with other offenfces he iiiade no reply. When charged with trying to influence Fuller, lie said he did not know him, and bad never seen ihiin until the day be was on the jury;

Air Tremaine submitted in regard to the cases that, with the exception of Campbell’s, no offences had been disclosed. There was no evidence to show that any threats or bribes were employed to influence the jurymen. Before accused could be convicted on those conversations, tlie informations must be amended, and if they were amended to read, “or by any other means,” they must lie borne out by evidence. The worst that had been said in respect to Gilshnan’s information was, "It would pay the jury to let him off.” It was quite an expression that anyone might use. No evidence of intention to corrupt could be gathered from the other conversations. He submitted there was a uifferencc between “attempt” and preparation for the attempt. Had lie offered money or suggested tlie offer, then if might have been an attempt, but accused merely mentioned that anyone could be corrupted. Accused pleaded not guilty on alt the charges and reserved bis defence, saying, “We will, have a box-on later.” He was committed Mr trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court at Palmerston North to commence on February 15, 1921. Bail was allowed in self of £IOO and two securities of £IOO each.