ALLEGED SECRET COMMISSION.

Wairarapa Age, 27 March 1920, Page 5

ALLEGED SECRET COMMISSION.

Ad Interesting Case.

BEFORE WELLINGTON MAGISTRATE. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Last Night. This afternoon Mr E. Page, S.M.y heard a case brought by the police under the Secret Commission Act. Frank Montagu Pearn, traveller, was charged that he did corruptly ' give to an agent of the Crown, in respect of business of the Department I of Tourist and Health Resorts, a gift ! of a sum of £3, as a regard for hnv; ing done an act in relation to the I business of the Crown, to wit, the act 'of procuring by the said Department of an advertisment in the periodical I publication "Wheeling." j Arthur Rees Thomas, Company I manager, was charged with aidina Und abetting the commission by F. M. Pearn of an s offence against section 3 of the Secret Commission Act, by giving an agent the sum of £3. Mr Maoassey, who appeared for the Crown, said the defendant was employed as a canvasser for the publication ''Wheeling." He saw the agent'at the Tourist Office, and secured an advertisement costing £3O. After the advertisment was arranged for, Pearn saw the agent in the Btreet and offered him money, which he refused to take. The agent was advertising clerk in the Tourist Department. Later Pearn saw the agent and gave him an envelope, which contained three £1 notes. The agent sent back the money later o» by cheque. % iJ ■ • Thomas C. R. Cox said he was employed as managing editor of "Wheeling" until the first week of November last, when he resigned. Some time in October, Pearn came into the office and asked for a plain envelope, which was given him. Then Pearn rang up the agent at the Tourist Office, and asked the latter td meet him (Pearn) in a quarter of an hour. Some time later Pearn told witnesss that he gave the agent some money, which he was glad to receive. Before the Public Service Commission, who held an investigation, Pearn had said that the money was a present from Thomas -and witneßß to the agent.

To Mr Myers "(defendant's coun- J sel): As far as witness was aware, Pearn had not received a commission on advertisments prior to this. Pearn was working on a salary. Mr Myers, for tho defendant, said that the charge was that on November Bth Pearn did "corruptly" give to an agent £3 for "procuring" an advertisement. The agent did hot procure the advertisement, and the advertising contract was made on October 21. No payment was made, and no payment had been suggested up to that time. The first suggestion was made on or about November JJad or 3rd, some time after the contract had been concluded. Before there could be an offence, the person paying- the money must have* done so j corruptly. There were two reasonable and possible inferences to be drawn, one guilty and bne innocent; '' The Court knew that an innocent inference must be drawn. There must have been a payment about the time the contract was made,, or there must have been an agreement or offer before the contract was made, to make a payment afterwards. A» payment or promise of payment must be in the nature of a reward. A payment of this kind was reprehensible, but it j was quite another thing to suggest! that the payment was an offence i against the Statute. The contract for the advertisment was not made by Pearn, 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 the information should be dismissed. The Magistrate reserved hjs de-' cisjon. The case against Thomas was adjourned, sine die.