AN IMPORTANT CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10402, 24 August 1911, Page 5

AN IMPORTANT CASE.

CHARGE OF BRIBERY.

VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY.

By Tekgraph-fPfeSs Association.

WEIMNiGTON, Last Night,

A*b' the Supreme Court to-day, Frederick James Mnrphy wias charged that on February 28th he proposed to, accept the sum of £2OO from Edward Wilberfoss Spooner on con- j datum- that he abstained from bidding j at a pubKe auction of a Crown lands i license. i \ Mr H. H. Ostler prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, arid Mr T. M. Wilford appeared for aoqused. The case presented some peculiar features. Prisoner was radiated under Section 69 of the Land Act, which, makes it an indictible. offence ft>r any person to ddrectly or indirectly offer or propose to accept or receive money as an inducement to abstain from bidding at a sale of; Grown lands, which have been advertised for sale by public auction. ' Mr Ostler produced two newspapers 1 io prove .that the sale was advertised. - , *. ; Mr Wilfordi pointed out that under Section 69 there was no offence un- , less the' land was advertised for sale in accordance with Section 67 of the Act, which provided that notice of eale should be published in the Gazt elite? and in the newspapers circulating in the district where the land wag situated, not less than one month before the sale. This was advertised in local newspapers to take place on February 29th, 1911, whereas no such data existed'. As the advertisements appeared on February 13th and! 15th, they were'not printed one month before the date of .the sale. Mr Ostler maintained that the sale

waa advertised, but he admitted that it was not for the .statutory .month. His nxraour said he could not see . how Mr Wilford'.s objection could be successfully answered. The facts of tthe case showed that Spooner had » pastoral run of 1400 acres near Taihape, wMcihl lease expired on Febru29th, and it was put up for sale on February 28th, 1911. Murphy and Spooner appeared to be the only two persons- interested in the ,sale, and in conversation the offence was alleged to have occurred. Spooler told the Commissioner, who said if he could get corroborative evidence be ' would take .proceedings. Spooner tried to induoe Murphy to repeat Ms

offer, but though something was said din the presence of .witnesses > about an alleged offer it was not specifically repeated'. The value of corroboration was not considerable, as 1 , the words of Section 69 of the Statute* made it an offence not only to 'offer but to accept a bribe not to Lid. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.