N.S.W. LAND SCANDALS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8066, 23 March 1906, Page 2

N.S.W. LAND SCANDALS.

CORRUPTION CHABGg. Bcceivod 22,10.10 p.m. Sydney, March 22. The trial of tho Hon. W. P. Crick, late Secretary for Lands in the New South Wales Cabinet, iu the Criminal Courts on a charge of corruption, came to a sudden and sensational termination, owing to the Crown case breaking down. The judge directed the jury to return a verdiot of not guilty, "and Criek wal discharged. FAILURE OF OBOWN CASE. CHIEF WITNESS' EVIDENCE Received 22, 11.18 p.m. Sydhkt, March 22. Tho charge was that Crick, aa Minis, ter of Lands, unlawfully and corruptly received for his own benefit £250 from Peter Close in connection with oertala land transfers. There was a strong bar on each side, Mr Shand who acted as one of Close's legal advisers daring the land commission enquiry leading for tho Crown, and Hon. G. H. Reid for the defence. The court wu crowded. Mr Reid entered a Domurrer, on grounds that the indictment contained no offence knowu to law; that if there was an offence, it ,was not properly described, and if otherwise correct, it was bad, for the want of definite particulars. After argumont the Demurrer WAS over-ruled. Evidence was called similar to that given at the Lands Commission, pror. ing the transfer. Peter Close was placed in the box. In reply to Mr Reid he said the evidence he proposed to give was similar to that which he gave when the Indemnity Act wa» passed. Witness then stated a con* versation with Crick, wherein the latter said a lot of land agents were getting land eases through, and making a lot of money out of them, and he did not sco why witness should not do the same, so long as it was legitimate, adding that he would have nothing to do with anything sßkdy. Coming to the payment of the £260,witness' memory appeared to be mora defective than when before the Lands Commission, and Mr Reid objected to loading questions being put to him. Witness said he handed Crick tko money, and told him to put it uWlg pocket, but nothing was said *H> what it was for, and no mention was made of the land case. Witness owed Crick no money, and it was not a loan or gift. It whs his own monoy and he did what he liked with it. He had had monetary transaction with Crick extending over many years, and often paid him large sums. He denied therewas an understanding with Crick that he was to act as land agent, and share profits with Crick. This closed the Crown ease. Mr Shand said iu the face of Mr Close's evidence* he could not support an indictory. The jury, on the direction of tho Judge, returned a vemict of "not guilty."