THE BRUGES BOTHER.

NZ Truth, Issue 143, 14 March 1908, Page 6

THE BRUGES BOTHER.

Was Brown Bribed?

The .brilliant energy exercised . by the honorable Costs profession m I preventing one 'of its members from ! paying the penalty of his misdeeds would be worthy of admiration were it devoted to a laudable object: Francis Henry Bruges, the Uhristchurch shark recently charged with the theft of £400 odd, the property of William Edward Brown, and whose sharking was so deplorable as to make it necessary to strike him oS the roll of other honorable sharks,^ has succeeded m missing gaol by a whisker, and should go down on his marrow bon.es nightly and thank the deity that lie isn't an inmate of the Lyttelton inferno. Bruges, it will be recollected, bankrupted for a huge sum, and was subsetiuently charged with an extensive swindle, m company with his managing clerk.* Jimmy Goodman. This poor devil of a i quill-driver was, sent up for two (years, but Bruges, who is a gentleman by Act of Parliament only,. got off on appeal. A month- ago the implacable Brown charged him with stealing- £400, but the person with toe common name was •INDUCED TO LISTEN TO REASON, and lawyer Dougal rose m Court and remarked that Brown desired to withdraw, the charge. Magistrate Day who surely can't he a solicitor, absolutely refused to grant the withdrawal, and adjourned the . cast for a fortnight, despite_-Dougars. assurance that the police didn't consider it necessary to take the matter up.' Oa Saturday last /Tec. Bishop informed the Bench that the ; case had been submitted to the Crown law ollrcers m Wellington (who, are also solicitors), and the police has been advised to take no further action. Magistrate Day spoke very plainly to all concerned. One of two things had occurred, he said. Either the police had been badly advised m not r/cmg on with the' prosecution or the processes of the Court had been misused It appeared 'to him (and would probably appear to piost neo.plc) that either the persons who l.U'i the charges had no' i:roper grounds for doing so or. that the charges were laid with the. intention of- recover ir moneys by criminal process which they could not have obtained by civil process. The cases would be struck out. With a desire to be as insulting as possible, "Truth" wants to know abput the £400 paid to keep .Bruges oUt Of gaol. Did. Brown get all br merely part of that sum ?- Evidently Day, S.M., knew something about iv. : certainly more than was known to the Crown Law officers m Wellington, or more -than those wellpaid officials affected to know. Perhaps the FISHIEST PART OF THE WHOLE BUSINESS is the fact that lawyer Stringer, Crown Prosecutor, is also trustee m the estate of Bruges, a circumstance so appallingly significant that it was deemed advisable to get Micky Myers down from Wellington as Crown Prosecutor to institute proceedings against Bruges m the first instance. What does Stringer know. about .the .£4OO anyway, and can .he give an assurance that it took that sum only to keep his chum Bruges on the daylight side of the local prison bars ? There appears to be reason for an inquiry. One might just as weH expect the Burglars' industrial Union of Workers to inquire into the lapses, of Hamilton, Sinclair, and' Ferris, as expect the* Law Society to probe into a matter, it is doing its utmost TO COVER UP AND CONCEAL : and a commission of inquiry under the aegis : of the Justice 'Department seems justified at the moment. Also, an extension of. the duties of the Public Trustee and a curtailment , of the powers of thieving Sawyers m respect of trust moneys,' yell loudly, for enactment m our Legislative halls.