Present of £10,600

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 368, 31 May 1928, Page 9

Present of £10,600

SYDNEY CIVIC SCANDAL Long Tale of a Contract (United P.A.—-By Telegraph — Copyright) SYDNEY, Wednesday. CONTINUING her evidence before the Sydney Royal Commission. Mrs. Hillias Eugenie Pittock, cross-examined by eounsel for Mr. Arthur James Arnott (manager for Babcock and Wilcox, Limited), denied that she had interviewed Mr. Arnott and ex-Alderman Green in order to see if they would pay the income-tax for Mr. Maling on the £10,600 which is the subject of the inquiry.

The commission is investigating the payment into the account of Mr. F. Buckle of £10,600, said to have been remitted from England for the letting of a contract to Babcock and Wilcox, Ltd., of London, for plant for the Sydney power-house; and the alleged handing over of that sum in instalments to Mr. S. Y. Maling, formerly deputy-manager of the city electricity department, through Mr. A. F. Albert, a moneylender, and his clerk, Miss Martha Gordon.

Continuing, Mrs. Pittock said that after she held interviewed Messrs. Green and Arnott, she wrote to Mr. Maling, suggestingto him that he should return from New Zealand and face the whole matter. The commissioner, Mr. Justice Harvey, asked what had become of certain letters written to witness by Mr. Maling while he was in New Zealand. Mrs. Pittock replied that she thought she must have destroyed them. His Honour then warned her that false swearing before him would render her liable to five years’ imprisonment. Mrs. Pittock denied that she had asked Mr. Wright, superintendent of the municipal garage, to ask Mr. Albert if the latter would advance £2,000 to pay the income-tax on the £10,600. She also denied having attempted to blackmail Mr. Arnott into paying the £2,600 income-tax which had been assessed against Mr. Maling. INCOME-TAX WORRY

Mr. Albert was re-examined. He said lie had received a telephone message from Mr. Wright, who arranged an interview, at which he said to witness: If someone comes along and offers you £2,600, will you pay it into the Income-tax Department? Witness said he refused, and asked Mr. Wright it it were Mrs. Pittock’s suggestion, but Mr. Wright refused to tell him, adding that the money would be supplied if witness would agree to pay it

into the Income-tax Department. Wit- | ness again refused, and the matter ended. In the course of his evidence Mr. Wright said that at his interview with Mrs. Pittock she had asked him if he would see Mr. Albert and induce him to pay the income-tax. She said that would settle it. Witness said he replied that it had nothing to do with him. and he did not want to be mixed up in the matter. However, he eventually agreed to see Mr. Albert, but the latter refused to have anything to do with the business. Continuing, witness said Mrs. PittoGk subsequently told him she had seen Mr. Arnott in reference to the in-come-tax, but he had refused to have anything to do with it and had stated his directors had made the arrange- ' ment. SHARING THE MONEY Inspector Mackay, of the Criminal Investigation Department. stated in evidence that he saw Mr. Maling in Wellington. At first the latter denied having received money from Babcock and Wilcox, Ltd. Later, Mr. Maling admitted that Mr. Arnott had told him £10,600 was offered by the firm as a present in connection with it securing the contract, and that Mr. Maling should have £2,000 and £7,500 was to be divided among certain aldermen. The balance would be required for expenses entailed in bringing the money from London and for incometax. Witness then related in detail how Mr. Maling had told him of the money coming out through the agency of Mr. Albert and being passed through Mr. Buckle’s banking account. Witness added that Mr. Maling had told him Mr. Albert kept more than £2,000, and that he (Mr. Maling) had got nothing out of it.