ALLEGATION OF BRIBERY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2212, 7 December 1920, Page 3

ALLEGATION OF BRIBERY.

ECHO OF EASTON CASE. SENSATIONAL STATEMENTS. ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. ■ A labourer named Thomas Martin appeared on remand on bail in the Palmerston Magistrate’s Court yesterday, charged .with having atr templed to influence Angus Duncan Campbell, a juryman in the case, King v. Easton, by a bribe. Accused was also charged with having attempted to influence three other jurymen, Edward Kilshnan, John Rosanowski and Charles 1 William Fuller. The offences were alleged to have been committed between November 9th and 131 ii. DetectiveSergeant; Quirke conducted the proceedings for the police, and Mr A. M. Ongley appeared for accused. All four charges were taken together.

Angus Duncan Campbell, ironmongery manager’s assistant, residing in Palmerston North, staled that he was called as a juror to the Supreme Court on November 9th. Accused was in the Court on that date, and approached witness, asking him if he was a juryman. Witness replied in the affirmative, and accused .said no more, but later came up to witness again and said that he was there on behalf of the Easton ease, and if witness, wanted to make any money the chance was there. He told witness that Easton was a millionaire, and that he had authority from him to say that he was prepared to spend £IO,OOO to get out of the trouble

that he was in. Witness said accused was running a big risk, but accused said he was being well paid for it. Witness also observed that accused could not stop the jurymen from doing their duty, and accused replied that he would tind out who was for Easton and who against. Witness left the man then and returned to ids business. Whilst cycling in Feathorslon street that evening witness was overtaken by accused on another bicycle.. Accused again mentioned the case, and witness said; “What are yon pre-e pared to give?” Accused casually mentioned £SO. Witness again advised him that lie was running a big risk, and refused to have anything to do wi.lli it. Wlien Pascal Street was reached accused said good night and cycled back towards (own. Witness did not see him again. Witness was called on the Easton case, but was challenged. Ho could not remember which side challenged. Dcteclivc-Scrgcanl Duirkc said he thought -witness had been stopped by (he Crown.

Tn Mr Ongiey: Accused did not m’l’er any money, nor did wilne-s -ec nay in Ids possession. Re-exa mined by Del eel ive-t-wr-gcant Quirke: No one else was presen! during Ihe eonversnl ions. Edward Gilslmnn, enrpenler am! hnilder, Featherslon • Sr reel, slnled (Iml he also wns e;iiled ;is n ,juror, ;md s;iw accused in lhe Court on November tith. Accused approa(died witness before the common jury wns culled, and said that it would pay whoever was on Ihe jury in Hie “big case'’ “to let liini off.” Witness replied that he had no desire to go on the jury, and sas<! accused could take his place. Accused said he wished to Goodness he could. Witness was a juryman in (he Easton ease, and after returning from huieh on the first day he was asked by accused how things wore going. Witness said he thought. it wns pretty evenly divided. Witness went to walk on, and accused touched him on the shoulder, hut witness declined to enter into further conversation, saying: “Von want to he careful in things like ibis.” Accused replied: “Oh, I’ll lie careful,” and that was all that passed at the time. Accused did not again approach him during the hearing of the ease. During one or the other of the conversations accused used Hue words “Don’t bring him in guilty.” On the Sunday morning following the ease witness met accused, who said that lie wa.s going down to the mill, and would be seeing him in a few days. One morning later accused came to witness and said that Easton had wished to find out who were his friends on the jury. Witness replied that lie only knew one man on the jury, and that if was not Ins place to disclose how the various members voted. Witness warned him to he careful, as enquiries were being made. He also said that no definite offer had been made, and he would not have accepted it if there hud been. Witness remarked that Easton had been referred to in the ease as a white ngin, and if lie could be so with all his money witness could. also he one without.

To Mr Ongley; Witness was never offered any sum in definite or indefinite terms to vote for Easton s innocence. Neither was witness threatened against acting in the other direction. The evidence was weighed on its merits. Re-examined by Detective-Serge-ant Witness weighed the evidence on its merits himself. He could not vouch lor the other jurymen. Charles William Fuller, also a juryman, saw accused in the Court on the 9th. After witness had been selected as a juror on the first case he was accosted by accused on the footpath during the luncheon adjournment. He said: ‘‘You’re one of {he jurymen?” Witness said: ‘Wes. He said: “It you are picked as a juryman on Easton’s caes and bring him in not guilty, Mr 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 hear anything else. There was someone with accused when (he conversation took place. Witness was foreman of the jury on the Easton case, and that jury disagreed. , .John Bernard Rosanowski, carpenter, Palmerston North, also saw accused- on November 9th at: the Courthouse. Witness was on the jury in (he case King 1 v. McConachie. After the jury had given their.verdict he left: the court-room. Accused left the court-room at the same time. On the way to the street he said to witness; “1 am glad yon let that fellow off, I knew he was not guilty from the start.” He then said: “I suppose you rvould like to get on Easton’s ease.” Witness replied: “No, I. do not wish to get on any ease; I would rather go back to work, as I am losing money by beingon the jury.” He then said: “It might pay you better to go on Easton’s case and let him off.” Witness had no further conversation with accused.

Frederick Robinson, horse dealer. Foxton, said he was a witness in tint Easton ease. In the witness’ room accused was talking to a witness named Proctor. Easton’s ease was then proceeding. Accused said that “any witness or anyone could be got for money —by paying them. Anyone could be bought so long as there was enough money behind them.” Procter said: “I don’t know so inuelj about that.” Accused said; “Do }ou mean to say you could not he bought;” Procter replied: “Don’t put (hose sort of questions .to nfe!” Accused again said that he (Procter) was only a working man, and he could not understand why he could not be bought. Procter said: “It. would be ridiculous for me to answer such questions as those.” Witness then joined in/ saying: “I don’t know about people being bought so easily. When the British were lighting at Mons none of their,■ men were bought, so why should we be?” Accused had never actually offered any money or mentioned any particular sum. Thomas V. Procter, labourer, Eoxton, a witness in the Easton ease, saw accused in the witness room. There were present at the thru; Dr, Gow, of Levin, Robinson, the las' witness, and possibly Wall, another witness in (he case. Accused said; “I’ll bet 10 to 1 that Easton gets off, and the jury disagrees.” No one took np the bet. He further said, “Have you seen the jurors 1 ? They are working men, and any working man can he bought. You could he bought!” Witness told him not to ask such questions, but accused still persisted, so witness said to him: “You ought to go to a .Mothers’ Meeting and (ell them dial." Later on witness saw accused in conversation with Mr Tom Bevan, of Mamikon.

To Mr Tremaine (for Mr Uuglcy)j No monev was offered.

'l’d Detective hjuirke: Accused was uni a witness, and apparently had mi riylit in the witness room at all. Detective Culloty, Palmerston N., said that accused was present at the criminal court last session every day. On November 13th, a tier having (dosed his defence in Mast on’s, ease, Air Wili'ord left (lie Court room and returned in the course of a lew minutes. As lie was entering the Court room door the accused spoke to him and said r 1 “I know another man who could give good evidence tor you. He is a steward oi! the Foxton Pacing Club, Tic was hi Court a few minutes ago. He can say that lie never saw any of those racing calendars.” Mr Tremaine objected to this portion of the evidence as being irrelevanl.

Detective Quirke: It has a hearing on the matter, and it shows intent and motive.”

'Magistrate: “It may show motive. I will, however, note Mr Tremaine’s objection.’’ Continuing, witness said that Mr Wili’ord replied, “It’s too late now,' or words to that elfeet. About 4 p.iu. on I be same date as the jury retired to consider their verdict the accused was in the passage as they passed out on their way to the jury room. He keenly watched the jurymen. Witness attended (he Ho.rowhemm races on November 17th last, and saw (he accused there. He was speaking to Mr Tom Bevan, a friend of Easton’s, in the bird-cage. Witness did not hear the conversation. • i Accused: “I will tell you if you, like.” Mr Tremaine objected to this evidence. His Worship said that, at present, he could not'see that: it was relevant. Continuing, witness said he arrested accused on the 29th, and charged him with the olfeiice concerning Campbell. Accused said: “1 don’t know Campbell. I never said anything to anyone except what I said to you; that was. If I was on the jury, give me Amytlms!’'' Later on when accused was charged •with the other offences ho made no reply. When charged with trying to influence Fuller, he said he did not know him, and had never seen him until the day lie was on the jury. Mr 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 the informations must be amended, and if they were amended to read “or by any other means,” they must be borne out by evidence. The worst that had been said in respect to Kilshnan’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 submittetd there was a differ-, euce between “attempt” and prepuiniion for the attempt. Had he offered money or suggested the offer then it; might have been an attempt, but accused merely mentioned that anyone,could be corrupted. Considerable discussion took place on the law on the subject, and the section under which the informa lions were laid.

The Magistrate pointed out it depended entirely on what construction was given to the section. He agreed that the informations should include the words “or other means.” The informations were amended accordingly.

Accused pleaded not guilty on all charges and reserved his defence, saying, “We will have a ‘hox-on’ later!” He was committed to the next sitting of the Palmerston North Supreme Court to commence on 15th February, 1921. Bail was allowed in self of £2OO and two sureties of £IOO each.