(BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.')

Wellington, Tuesday... At the Police Court this morning G. N. Baseott, late' Receiver-, of Land Revenue, and the Hon., :^J-X 8!,.., Whyte, :M.L.C., were charged on summons with conspir ing to defraud- the Government, the par ticulars of the v charge having already, been detailed. In opening the case Mr Skerretb said it would be shown that the defendant' Wbyte was .the purchaser of; what was familiarly known as scrip of two kinds, namely,/that issued under" the New Zealand State Forests Reserves Act of 1871, and amend ments, and that under the Naval and Military Sebtiers ,'Act. of. 1888. " It was to Whyte's interest to dispose of this scrip to the best advantage. Had he dis posed of it to outside persona, there would be nothing-against it, bub there were dis advantages against such a course. He proposed to adduce evidence showing that Whyte had made an arrangement with Baggott, the nature of which would be a matter of inference; bub it would bo proved that what was generally done was that Whyte deposited from time to time with the Bank of New Zealand at Wellington, a large quantity of scrip with instructions to the Bank to hand it over from time to time to Baggott in exchange for cash for its full value, less a small deduction, which it would ba shown was in one instance at leasb received by Baggotb as commission. What Baggobb did was this-. When he had moneys paid to him in respect of the purchase of* Crown land, and which ought to have gone into the Government account, and when Whyte had scrip lying at the bank, Baggott transferred the moneys he had received on behalf of the Crown, and; substituted in lieu of it Whybe's scrip. The ihfeience was that these two persons had agreed to do exactly what he had de scribed.; As againsb bhe^ defendant Baggott, he proposed to show that be had admitted that-in four instances moneys received by him for Crown lands were by arrangement with Why.be trans ferred to" hi 3 (Wbyte's) private "account, and scrip., was; substituted. The evi dence against the defendant, \ Whytei was equally strong, as it would be shown that there had been a systematic transfer of Government moneys to -account. 