A CROWN LANDS CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 53, 24 August 1911, Page 5

A CROWN LANDS CASE.

SOME PECULLMt FEATURES. By Telegraph—Press Association. , Wellington, Last Night. Patrick Jaines Murphy was charge* that on Fehruary 28th he proposed to accept a sum of £2OO from Edward Wilber foss Spooner on condition that he abstained from bidding at a public auctiom of a Crown lands license. Mr. H. H. Ostler prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for the accused. The case presented some peculiar features. The prisoner was indicted under section 69 of the Land Act, which makes it an indictable offence for any .person to directly or indirectly offer or propose to accept or receive money as an inducement to abstain from bidding at a sale of Crown lands which have been advertised for sale by public auction. Mr. Ostler produced two newspapers to prove that the sale was advertised, but Mr. Wilford pointed out that under section U9 of the Act there was no offence unless the land was advertised for sale in accordance with section C 7 of the Act, which •proved that notice of the jale should ha published in the Gezette and In a newspaper circulating in the district where the land was situated not less than one month before the sale. This was advertised in a local newspaper to take place on February 29, 1911, whereas no such date existed. As the advertisements appeared on February 13 and 15, they were not printed one month before the date of the sale. Mr. Ostler maintained that the sale was but admitted that it was : not for the statutory month. His Honor said he could not see how Mr. Wilford's objections could be successfully answered. The facts of the case showed that Spooner hod a pastoral lease of 1400 acres near Taihape, which lease expired on February 29, 1912, and it was put up for sale on February 28, 1911. Murphy and Spooner appeared to be the' only persons interested in the sale/ and in conversation the offence was alleged to have occurred." Spooner told the Commissioner, who said that if he could get corroborative evidence he would take proceedings. Spooner tried to induce Murphy to repeat his offer, but though something was said in the presence of witnesses about an alleged offer it was not specifically repeated. The value of corroboration was not considerable, as the words <»f section 69 of the Statute make it an offence only to offer to accept a bribe not to bid. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.