ONE YEAR’S GAOL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 2241, 19 February 1921, Page 3

ONE YEAR’S GAOL.

INFLUENCING A JURY

MARTIN GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED BRIBERY AND INFLUENCING.

At the Supreme Court, Palmerston North, on Thursday, before His Honour Sir John Salmond, a labourer named Thomas Martin was- arraigned on four charges of attempting to influence, by means of bribes or other corrupt means four jurymen in their conduct in the recent case Rex v. Frederick Spencer Easton. Four alternate charges were also preferred, that he wilfully attempted to obstruct, prevent and defeat the course of justice by at> tempting to influence the jurymen % favour of Easton. A joint charge covering all the jurymen concerned, Angus Duncan Campbell, John Rosanowski, Edward Gilshnan, and William Fuller, was also taken. Accused pleaded not guilty to all of the nine charges. The following jury was empanelled: M. Millar (foreman), Hy. J. East, C. Harris, J. A. B. Wilson, J. Donaldson, G. Morgan, L. Lovelock, N. A. Tilley, W. H. Messenger, L. C. Charles, C. Freeman and A. Wilkins.

Mr E. 11. Cooke prosecuted. Accused was defended by Mr A. M. Ongley. The Crown Prosecutor briefly outlined the charges, stressing the point that if the jury considered that accused had attempted to “sound” the jurymen, who were approached to see if they would accept a bribe, then an offence had been committed. The first witness called was Angus Duncan Campbell, who said that on November Oth accused asked if he was a juryman, and witness replied that'he was. Later in the day accused said to him: “I am here on behalf of the Easton case, and if you want to make any money here is a chance for you.” Accused said that Easton was a millionaire, and that lie was prepared to spend £IO,OOO to get out of the trouble lie as in. Witness replied that lie (accused) was running a pretty big risk in doing a thing like that, but he said he was prepared to take that risk because he was getting well paid for it. Witness said he would have nothing to do with it at all, and left him. They met again in the evening, accused catching up to him while cycling in Featlierston Street. Accused again mentioned the case. Witness said: “What are von prepared to give? Accused said “£50.” The question was asked witness as a joke and lie treated the answer as such. The affair had had no influence upon him. To Mr Ongley: Accused did not ha y he was authorised to spend £IO,OOO. In Featlierston Street witness was the first to mention the question of money. Witness did not gather from the conversation that if he had accepted an offer he could have got the Jjso. He saw no money, and none was actually offer - ed. Had the money been offered he would have reported the matter to the police. He was stood down I>a the Crown in the Easton ease, and as far as he krisw Easton’s counsel had no objections to his going on

the jury. Edward Gilslman, builder and carpenter, said accused spoke to him in Court, and asked him if he was on the jury. Witness said that ' 'the jury had not yet been called. Accused said: Whoever was on the jury in the big case it would pay them to let him oft'. Witness did not, at Hie lime, know which was the big ease, and said be bad no wish to be on the. jury, and so far as he cared accused could take lus place. Accused said: “I wish to God I could.” Witness was subsequently empanelled as a juryman on the'case, and during an adjournment accused asked him how the case was going, to which witness replied that “it was about evenly divided.” Accused appeared as if lie wanted to discuss the matter. Witness could see he was interested in the case, and advised accused to be careful in such a matter as this. On a later occasion accused said to him: “Don’t bring him in guilly.” On the following Sunday witness met Martin in Featherston Street. Martin told him that “he was going down to the mill; 1 will he seeing him in a few days.” Witness concluded he meant Easton. At a later date Martin came to his private house and wanted to know who were his friends on the jury. Witness said: “Who?” Martin replied: “Easton.” Witness said he only knew one man on the jury, and it was not, in any case, his place to divulge how the jury voted. Witness again advised him to he careful, as enquiries were being made. The second trial of Easton had not taken place then. Martin told him that Easton wanted to make bis jury friends a present. No money was offered or shown, and witness immediately said that Easton had been referred to by his counsel as a “white man.” If he could be a white man with all his money, he (witness) could be a white man without money.” To His Honour: It was possibly on the second day of the trial that accused said he was “being paid for

It. Charles Win. Fuller, also a juryman at that session, said that accused said to him: “If you are picked as a juryman on Easton’s case and bring him'in not guilty, Mr Easton will see you right. He has plenty of money.” Witness said: •‘Yes, is that so?” and seeing the sort of man Martin was, he mounted his cycle and rode off. Witness was foreman of the Easton jury. To Mr Onglcy: After witness got on the jury accused never approached him. The action of Martin had

lmd no effect on him. To the Prosecutor: Martin appeared to be sounding him, and was not given a chance to offer him (witness) a bribe. John Bernard Rosanowski, Palmerston North, said lie -was on another case, and. when it was over accused said to him: “I am glad you let that fellow off, I knew' life was not guilty all along.” He then said: “I suppose you would like to get on Easton’s ease?” Witness said he would not, as lie was losing time and money. Martin said: “It might pay you better to let him off.” Witness never answered him.

To Mr Ongley: The statement madoyby accused could be heard by any one within hearing. Accused was a rather talkative person. Witness did not think there was anything in the offer at first, but from subsequent events considered that accused might have an interest in the matter. Witness would have reported him to the police if a bribe had been offered.

Thomas A r . Procter, Foxton, who was a witness in the Easton ease, said that accused came into the witness room and said that he would bet 10 to 1 that Easton would get off. “They’re working men, and any working man can be bought. You can he bought.” "Witness told him that lie ought to go to a mothers’ meeting and tell them that. To Mr Ongley: There were several in the witness room, find much discussion, mostly in a jocular manner, was carried on. There was no attempt to influence either-witness or anyono else present at the'time. Expressions were made in the room that Easton might have bribed someone to burn the lease.

Frederick Robinson, Foxton, was called, but was hot examined by the Prosecutor. In cross-examination lie said lie was in the witness room when accused was -talking about betting that Easton would get off. No bribe was offered.

The Crown Prosecutor addressed the jury, and said that even if Martin was joking, it was a serious joke and did not effect the possibility of accused being guilty of a crime—that of trying to influence. Some of the jurymen approached did not take him seriously, but others realised the gravity of the affair, and that it might be possible, if they so desired, to obtain money. Martin had tried to find out how many jurymen favoured Easton at Palmerston North so as to assist in the defence at Wanganui. That showed part of a system. 'All they could judge the man by was his own statements and the impressions made by his words on the jurymen. For the defence Mr Ongley addressed the jury at length. The Crown, lie said, did not suggest anything worse than an attempt to bribe. If they found that the action of accused amounted merely to a preparation for an attempt to bribe or influence, then the charges against him would fall through. Before they could convict him they must find that lie was acting on behalf of Easton, and that lie had the money or means at his disposal to carry out the suggested attempts at bribery. Counsel submitted that there was not a tittle of evidence to connect accused with Easton, or to show that lie had the money. Counsel dealt very fully with the evidence of each of the four principal witnesses, and submitted that there was nothing to show that accused had offered any money. His statements were general ones, and were perhaps wild and silly, but without criminal intent. There was no attempt at secrecy. It was impossible to seriously believe that a man like accused had ever had authority to spend £IO,OOO. A man of his type and standing would have no possibility of successfully approaching a juryman on such a subject, and it was only eommonsense to assume that even if Easton wanted to employ someone for this purpose he would not select such a man as accused. Mr Ongley contended that accused could not be convicted on the interpretation of the statements, sayings which had no effect on the jury.

Ilis Honour, in addressing the jury, said that this was, to his knowledge, the first case of its kind heard in New Zealand. This fact was a testimony to the purity of our jury system. He pointed out that in Victoria it had been shown that there was a syndicate whose business was to “buy juries.” His Honour then dealt very carefully with the case before the court, and read the law on the counts they were asked to decide. One peculiarity of the case was that the evidence of the prosecution had been wholly uncontradicted. Counsel for the defence had been candid in this respect. It was not necessary to show that accused had any authority from Easton because the Crown had not charged him with being Easton’s agent. .It was also not necessary for the Crown to prove that Martin had the money. In bribing it was generally found that a person was at first “sounded.” If they thought accused did that, then he should be found guilty. Ihe question of “preparation for the offeuce” was due of law for the Court to decide if it was considered that such was the case.

The jury retired at 1.5 p.m., and returned at 2.25 with a verdict of guilty of attempting to bribe in the case of Campbell, and with attempting to influence all four of the jurymen. On the joint charge a verdict of guilty was also returned. He was found not guilty of attempting to bribe Rosanowski, fuller and Kilshnau.

The prisoner turned pale on hearing the verdict, and had nothing to say. Mr Ongley pleaded for leniency for his client, whom, he said, had no' previous criminal record.

He was a married man with a family. THE SENTENCE. His Honour said that he entirely agreed with the verdict, and - he could cn!y regard the offence as a very serious one. Tliis, he thought, was the first case in which such conduct had been brought under the notice of the criminal courts of this country. The whole strength and efficiency of the jury system depends upon the absolute immunity of jurymen from corrupting influences, bribery, threats and improper interference. He did not know to what extent accused was acting on his own or to what extent lie was influenced by some other party to act in such a manner. He could not think of admitting him to probation or of imposing a fine. He had got to serve a term of imprisonment, which would be a lesson to him and to the whole of the community. Interference with the courts of criminal justice in this country would not he tolerated.

Accused was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, wiih hard labour, in the Wellington Gaol.