BRIBERY ALLEGED.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 November 1921, Page 5

BRIBERY ALLEGED.

CITY ALDERMAN CHARGED. SYDNEY PROSECUTION. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received Nov. 15, 10 p.m. Sydney, Nov. 15. Aiderman Bramston, before the Police Court, was charged, on an information laid by Sir Allen Taylor, that while a member of the City Council he corruptly took to himself and other persons unknown, who were also public and Ministerial officers, a bribe of £25 in part payment of a larger sum from George Gill, as an inducement to favor Gill and R. Read in relation to contracts for taking supplies to the City Council. Counsel for Sir Allen Taylor, in opening the case, said the action was taken by Sir Allen Taylor and others for the purpose of obtaining certain information, and now he was compelled to carry the matter through as the result of a discovery made. A prosecution would not have been immediately necessary if the Government had seen fit to open a Royal Commission to enquire into matters, the fringe of which was only touched by this prosecution. Counsel for Sir Allen Taylor continued that tenders were called by the council fbr the supply of half a million wood blocks, and Gill and Read were employed to tender. Gill secured an introduction to Bramston, and the latter agreed t<P ascertain what was a likely figure it would be wise to tender.

Gill, describing himself as an agent, gave evidence detailing a series of conversations with Bramston, in which he alleged the latter said it would be necessary to pay him commission on the contract./ Witness objected to this, whereupon Bramston said the commission would not be paid by. Gill or Read, but by the council, and he wrote a list of increased prices to be put in the tender. He also suggested that Gill should give a bank guarantee instead of a cash deposit, stating: “That will relieve you of providing extra cash for the amount to be paid to me.” He added: “I will have to buy off several members of the combine wno are in opposition to my crowd.” In reply to a question as to how that was managed without others knowing, he said they would stay away from the council meetings. He also said he had increased the prices in the tender by £7OO. At a subsequent interview Bramston said the tender had been accepted, but an objection had been lodged, which would mean a delay of a fortnight, and witness later gave him £25. During a further interview Bramston promised to secure another contract for the same number of blocks at an increased price of ten shillings per thousand, the understanding being one which would give Brarnston’s friends £lOO each. Later Bramston said he would accept £3OO in cash and £3(10 in instalments as witness was paid by the council. Bramston added that if witness carried out this contract he could rely on receiving an order for £lOO,OOO worth of electrical machinery. The case was adjourned till Thursday.