Wellington Supreme Court.

Manawatu Herald, 28 November 1896, Page 2

Wellington Supreme Court.

(Before His Honour the Chief Justioe.) Wednesday, November 26. ALLEOED ATTEMPT TO DIYSBT TBS COURSE OF JUSTICE. On the Court resuming, the charge against George Johnston Scott of having given a bribe and William Coombs of having acoepted the same, with the intention of diverting the course of justice, came on for hear* ing. Mr Gully prosecuted, Sir Robert Stout appeared for Coomb?, and Mr Skerrett for Scott. Mr Rankins, of Palmeraton North, instructed the defending counsel. Mr W. J. Lankshear was chosen foreman of the jury. In opening the case, Mr Gully explained that Coombs had had a number of sheep stolen from him, and the skins of these sheep were traced as having come through the j hands of a son of Scott, who was arrested and charged with the theft

of the sheep. It; wag proved tlftt just after the theft a number of sheep had been slaughtered on the land of Scott, jun. Coombs identified the sheepskins, and gave th« police to understand that he intended to pro* eecute Scott junior, and made an appointment with them for the day following. In the meantime, however, he had an interview with Soott senior, and after the interview broke his appointmans with the police, and subsequently told them that he did not intend to proceed further with the prosecution. The reason for this, it was suggested, was that at the interview Scott senior arranged to pay for the value oi the sheep. Two days after this Scott paid a sum of £88 to Coombs, representing the value of the stolen sheep, and it wai suggested that the payment of that aum was made in consideration of the prosecution being dropped. H« did not say that any such agreement would be conclusively proved, bat il the jury were satisfied from the circumstances that there was inch an agreement to divert the course of justice, it was for them to bring in » verdict accordingly. Sir Robert Stoat submitted thai on the evidence as opened by Mr Gully there wag no case against the accused whatever. Coombs was not bound to proeecute, and the receipt of money alone was not suffioitnt evidence of an agreement such as v/h-< suggested. After lengthy argument Mr Gully said there was no direct evidence. He did not profess to be able to carry i be case further than the depositions showed. He suggested that the evidence gave rise to the inference that the bargain was that the pro* ceedings should be dropped. Sir Robert Stout — Open to inference is not sufficient proof of guilt. Mr Gully, after further discussion, said he proposed after hearing His Honour's views to consent to s> verdict of Not Guilty. His Honour in addressing the jury t=aid there was no doubt that wherever they heard of any such payment as had been made in the present case they were very ap. to infer that there was some corrupt agreement. This, however, was very unjust unless they knew something more definite — a jury could not act upon mere suggestion. In the case of Soott, there was nothing to compromise him. There seemed to be a good deal to ahow that Coombs' conduct did alter after a certain point. He did first of all eeem in favour of prosecuting, and then came this cheque, and the alteration in his conduct. There might be something compromising on th* part of Coombs, but he did not gee anything compromising on the part of Scott. After quoting an American case to show that payments of the value of stolen property could be made without \ necessarily being a corrupt proceed « ing, His Honour said he considered it his duty to tell the jury that there was not evidence to support the prosecution. The jury immediately brought in a verdict of Not Guilty, and the accused was discharged. — Pott.