AN UNUSUAL CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 March 1920, Page 5

AN UNUSUAL CASE.

< SECRET COMMISSION ACTCORRUPT PAYMENT ALLEGED. i By Telegraph,—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. This afternoon Mr. E. Page, S.M., heard a case brought by the police under the Secret Commission Act. Prank Montague Pearn, a traveller, was chargi ed "that he did corruptly give to an • agent of the Crown in respect of the ! business of the Departmtnt of Tourist 1 and Health Resorts a gift of the sum of i £3 as reward for having done an act in relation to the business of the • Crown, to wit, an act of procuring by : the said Department of an advertisement I in the periodical publication Wheelingi Arthur Rees Thomas, company man- ' ager, was charged with aiding and abet- , ting the commission by i\ M. Pearn of. an offence against Section 3 of the Secret Commission Act, by giving an agent the sum of £3. Mr. Macasfsey, who appeared for the Crown, said the defendant was employed as a canvasser for the publication Wheeling. He saw an agent at the Tourist •Oflicc and secured an advertisement costing £3O. After the advertisement Was arranged for Pearn saw the agent in the street and offered him money, Which ho refused to take. The agent was advertising clerk in the Tourist Department. Latsr Pearn saw the agent and gave , him an envelope, which contained three £1 notes. The agent sent back the money later on by cheque. Thomas C. R. Cox said he was cmployed as managing editor of Wheeling' until the first week in November last, when he resigned. Some time in October Pearn .came into the offiiie and asked for a plain envelope, which was given him- Then Pearn rang up the agent at the Tourist Office and asked the latter to meet him (Pearn) in a quarter of an hour. Some time later Pearn told witness that he gave the agent some money; which he was glad to receive. Before the Public Service Commissioners, who held an investigation, Pearn had said that the money was a present from Thomas and witness to the agent. To Mr. Myers . (defendant's counsel): As far as witness was aware Pearn had not received commission on the advertisement. Prior to this Pearn was working on salary. Mr. Myers (this afternoon) said that the charge was that on November 8 Pearn did corruptly give to an agent £3.-for "procuring" an advertisement, Tlie agent did not procure the advertisement, and the .advertising contract was malic on October 21. No payment was made, and no payment had* be.fc suggested up to that "time. suggestion was made on or about N. vembor 2 or 3, some time after the contract had been concluded. Before there could be any offence the person paying the money must have done so corruptly. There were two reasonable and possible inferences to be drawn—one guilty and one innocent. The Court knew that an innocent inference must be drawn. There must have been a payment about tho time the contract was made, or there must have been an agreement or offer before the contract was made to make a payment. After, wards a payment, or tlio promise of payment, must be in the nature of a regard. A payment of this kind was re-' prohensible, but it was quite another thing to suggest that the payment was an offence against the Statute. The ■ contract for the advertisement was not made by Peern and the agent. The contract was fixed by Mr. Wilson, head of the Department, and. there was no payment or any -suggestion of payment when the contract was made. Counsel concluded by claiming that tho information should be dismissed. The Magistrate reserved his decision. The ease against Thoma; was adjourned sine die.