THE MILBURN CREEK SCANDAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2710, 25 November 1881, Page 2

THE MILBURN CREEK SCANDAL.

The following summary of the facts of this case we condense from an article in the “ Australasian ” :—lt seems that a Parliamentary vote was, for some reason or other, made in favor of the Milburn Creek Copper-mining Company, Limited, At a meeting of this company some grumbling shareholder made some remark about the amount of the expenses. He was told that there were vouchers for everything ; that the directors were honorable men ; that all was right; but that it was not wise to ask questions, and that Parliamentary proceedings were expensive. The last suggestion, although it might have been effectual to silence the shareholder, attracted attention elsewhere. The matter was mentioned in Parliament, unpleasant rumours got afloat, and ultimately a commission of inquiry was issued to Mr Salomons, Q.C., to investigate and repoit upon the entire subject. Mr Salomons’ report seriously implicated two members of the Legislative Assembly, One of these was Mr Baker, formerly Minister for Mines ; the other was Mr Garrett,

The case against Mr Baker was this. He was one of the trustees of the company, and also its managing director. As soon as the rote was passed, he and his oo'trustees drew three cheques, each for £I,OOO, in favor of themselves re spectively, on loose forms, and not in the proper cheque book ; and no entry, record or reference respecting any of these cheques appears in any of the company’s books or accounts. Further, certain other sums were paid to themselves by the trustees, the result being, in the words of the report, that “ the trustees had appropriated to themselves apart from any claim or dividend, without the sanction or knowledge of the shareholders, a total sum of £4,500 out of the sum voted by Parliament.” Nor was this all. Statements were laid .of accounts before the shareholders, which were proved to be absolutely false. To the allegations contained in this report nothing like a reasonable defence seems to have been put forward by the members implicated. Mr Garrett’s case is still worse. He was engaged in an illusory dealing in shares with Mr Waddell, one of the trustees, and Mr Russell, the solicitor of the company, and it cannot be doubted that the whole proceedings bear unmistakeable badges of fraud. The conclusion to which the commissioner comes is thus stated :—“ If the facta are as they appear in the evidence of Mr Bussell, the above-mentioned transaction in shares geeips to admit of only one interpretation —* that is, that Mr Garrett was to receive either the value of the 2,000 shares or the £SOO represented by his promissory note as a corrupt reward for services rendered by him to the company as a member of the Legislature ; in othpr words, that Mr Garret, Mr Waddell, and Mr Bussell are guilty of bribery and corruption.”