“GRAFT” INQUIRY

Hokitika Guardian, 2 June 1928, Page 1

“GRAFT” INQUIRY

(Australian Press Association.)

SYDNEY, Alay 31

At the Royal Commission. inquiring into civic affairs, replying to counsel for Milling, Police Inspector,, Alackay said that when lie went to New, Zealand he had no power to arrest ,Maling and bring him back in custody., His instructions were to communicate to the Crown Solicitor the developments prising out of the statements made by Maling, and out of his own inquiries from Alaling about-, the transaction. Frank Green, .ex Alderman of the City Council, gave evidence. He said that his wife had means of her own, but she had. never invested until 1926 when she purchased an equity.in some property, paying £IOOO for it. She kept her money at home, and witness did not know she had it until 1926, when she told him that she,had £ISOO in notes, planted under a flooring board, where it had been for years.

In reply to questions witness said that when his wife told him about having tlie money hidden, he expressed no curiosity as to- where it came from, and although his wife never mentioned it to him before, there was no reason why she should have hidden it.

In reply to a further question, witness said that during the absence of Air Forbes Alackay, the Alanager of the City Council Electricity Department, nearly three million pounds worth of tenders .were agreed to. Ex-Alderman Green continued that, as far. ns he could recollect, the Labour Party in the City Council was unanimously, in favour of accepting Babcock and Wilcox’s tender, Ho denied that prior to liis; vote, being given in. the Council he had been approached bv Maling, or that, he over, put nil improper proposal before him. Witness, was quite definite, and positive about- this. Ex-Alderman Green,, continuing his evidence, said that lie had never at any time received, a .suggestion from anybody that money should he paid in .respect of Bahcock-AVilcox’s tender, and lie laid at. any time taken any money from Moling. He added .that Maling’s statement that lie . paid witness £7,500 was absolutely untrue. _ Witness also denied he had any communication with Alaling, while the latter was in New Zealand.

Questioned .regarding his interviews with AT is Pittock, witness denied that she had said that Alaling. had "told her that lie had handed money to witness. Ho said 1 that,Mrs Pittock did not mention that, a sum of money had como through Albert. Witness did not make any inquiry as to how Albert- had como into the business.

Ex-Alderman Green, added that lie had had suspicions .that Milling was crooked in the Bahcock-AVilcox contract, but he had nothing to base that opinion on.

Mrs Green, wife of, the former witness, .gave, evidence,,that, the, £1,500 she had secreted had been given her b'y her dead sister, as a kind of trust fund for the latter’s two children, whom she .is looking after. Tlie reason that she kept the matter a;secret was that her pis ter. had asked her to say nothing about it. The. money was gi ven to her in 1919, and her, husband was astounded when she told .him in 1926 that She had the money, She told her husband she had the money after she bail invested it in property. Witnessj was searehiiigly cross-exapi-ine<l by Air Shand, as to why she did not put the money in the bank, instead of hiding it under the flooring. She said that she had never thought of putting it in the bank. . In reply to a further, question by Air Shand, witness said that she might leave her sister’s two children what was left of the £1,500 when she was dead. She had not mentioned the money to her sister’s children, one of whom was now .grown up, because she thought that her sister did not want them to know about it.

GRAFT INQUIRY

SYDNEY, June 1

At the Royal Commission inquiring into civic affairs,. Mrs Green continued her evidence. She denied that her home had been thoroughly', renovated in 1926. She admitted that she. had had some improvements made, but she could not remember the names of the firms who did the work. Witness also denied she had a separate banking account in her maiden, name. .

, Witness, in reply to. a question, said that ; she had asked her husband whether he. had , had anything to do with tlie £10,600, and he had said that lie was not mixed up with it. In reply ito a further, question, witness said that .she might, have thought that, there, had been “graft” in connection with, the £10,600. .William Holdsworth, formerly an Alderman, of the City Council, gave evidence that he was an Alderman, in flie City, Council from. 1918 until December of last year. He was a hotelkeeper, but he owned no property, and lie | had accumulated no profits. He had only' been able to make an income to i meet his expenditure.

In reply to a question,, witness said that his.wife had acquired money principally .out of his., salary when he was a member of Parliament; and she also owned some,property. Witness denied that Ar.not had ever given him a penny. In reply to a question by Air Shand witness said that lie knew of the “graft” allegations. Witness declared that the graft allegations had been going on for the past thirty' years,. and much more so when the Civic, Reform Party was in. power in the City Council tllaii when 'Labour had held the reins, hut he (witness) always had kept himself clean and clear of, suspicion. . . Witness also denied lie had ever telephoned Alnot, and that he ever had any conversation with . Ainot about money. It was a deliberate .lie for Arnot to sny !; .thut lie : hajl asked for £IO9O, and that Arnot asked him to take £SOO. The. only reasoYi that lie could , give for Arnot fabricating such a story - was that Arnot wanted some money for himself. .In reply to Mr Shand, who asked whether Arnot-. had told witness that Alaling had advised him not to make any payment- to witness, because witness would get his share with the others, Air Holdsworth replied. “Never in his life did lie utter those words to me, or anything like them.

In reply to further questions, witness said his idea was that Arnot represented to his firm that.he had to pay out the money, and that he kept it himself. Witness added: ”At the time we (meaning the Labour Party in the City Council). gave the contract to Badcoek-Wilcox, we could not have given, the contract to. anybody else” We dared not do so. The trades Hall would not.have, allowed. ft.”,. .. . Tlie inquiry was adjourned till Tuesday next.