THE WAIRAU ELECTION PETITION.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1395, 22 March 1912, Page 6

THE WAIRAU ELECTION PETITION.

4 CONCLUSION OF THE EVIDENCE ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL. . H3y Telegraph—Press Association.} Blenheim, March 21. The hparinj nf the petition forwarded fo the Chief Justice by William C'nrr, John O'Sullivah, and John Lnnkow against the return of Richard M'Cn.Uum as representative of the Wairan district was continued this morning, before, Sir Joshua.. Williams and llr. Justice Chtipman. Mr. Sinclair was for tbn petitioner?, and Mr. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. Mills for respondent.

F. E. Morrison, cross-osaroined by Mr. Sinclair, said lie did. not promise to go and see Macey. He did not tell Sinclair he would see Macey and leave word at Wifien's whether he got money. A\ hen Sinclair saw him at Benwicktown, he brought a man up to b,ko witness's place in tne harvest field' for two clays. Witness, said he was capable of doing his own work, and did not want anyone to do it. for him. Siurlair suggested thnt witness should come to town and casually meet Mncey, and ask for money. It was absolutely untrue that he said ho would meet Jla'cev at church on Sunday, after tho New Year, nnd get the money. He met Sinclair on Xew Year's Day. and told him he Washed . his hands of the dirtv business.

'Edward Francis Healy paid he w.-is secretary of Duncan's.committee. Morrison told him lie had been offered .51 n day to canvass for M'Callniu, and had accepted the offer. Hβ had been employed fo canvass WifTen's supporters nt tho first ballot for M'Callum. Witness saw Morrison at Renwicktown. Tho latter said lie was goin* on. the stage to address'the electors in favour of M'Callum, and felt awkward, as he was not going to vote for M'Callum. Morrison after'wards came to a meeting of Duncan's supporters, and said he and A..M'Callum had been to Mirza, Ward, and Seddon, and uio.st of Wiffen's supporters were going to vote for M'Callum. Morrison suggested that I<oudon and himself should go-together to the booth nnd show each other ballot papers to show that Morrison did not vote for M'Callum. Morrison made statements to witness voluntarily on a dozen occasions. . He would not "placo much reliance on anything Morrison said. Morrison never suggested making money . out of Duncan's' committee. Witness and Charles Ferguson approached Parker to hire cars for the second ballot.'. This was before the first ballot. Parker replied thnt he could have all the cars. No one had asktd for them for tho second ballot. Witness understood all tho cars were intended. No number was mentioned. Witness and Ferguson asked, as private individuals. Duncan had nothing to do with it. Witness paid Parker .£5 hire for the car on tho first day. On the second day he got one car and paid £h for it. He paid £o each for several cars used that day. He saw Parker' a day or two before the second ballot, and asked how many cars he could give him. Parker said one car, and that he was giving all tho rest to M'Callum. Witness had

paid Parker £33 for hire of cars in connection with tho election, £W on election days. Witness asked Parker if

he thought it a gentlemanly action, after his promises of the cars. Parker replied that he did not care. Hogan never offered vehicles free to him. He understood "from Hogan that if ho liked to pay: for the vehicles he could have them. Humphreys was a potent factor at Mirza for M'Callnm. He took a prominent part in the election. Witness knew it would be. improper, for himself officially, or Duncan, to hire oars, but not as a private individual. Jlr. Skerritt 'here said ho was sorry the matter was. introduced, as Duncan was not. a partv to the petition, but respondent introduced it.

. .To Mr. Skerrett: Witness said Duncan j gave witness a rovering cheque of ,£2OO odd. He' did not know how much over <£200. Ho did not come armed with anything he could find out from the hank. Mr. Skerrett replied: No, yon como here to do your employer a deal nf harm. Witness said he could not. holp thnt, he must speak tho truth. Witness was not reimbursed for all expenditure. He could not say what proportion Duncan paid or he himself paid. Ho was out of pocket by the election. Receipts were forwarded to Duncan. Ho did not think Duncan knew ho was hiring car?. Hr saw Humphreys working generally qt Seddon. Witness received no circular in regard to the cost of tlie election petition. He had not paid ,£5 towards the fund, and was not going to pay anything. . Arthur Wiffen, a candidato at Iho first ballot, gave evidence as to Morrison coming to him and asking him if ho objected to Morrison working for M'Callum at the second ballot. . Witness replied "No." Morrison worked for him on the farm. Morrison said Macey undertook to pay him .£1 per day. Other witnesses were called to prove that Morrison made statements regarding being paid £i. per day by M'Calhim. E. F. Healy, recalled, said tho cheque nhid him by Duncan was for .£l7l ss. Bd. He paid that cheque into liis own account. .Patrick Meehan gave evidence that Humphreys was working for M'C'allum at the election.

Asked by Mr. Sinclair about a. conversation, Mr. Skerrett objected, as aeency had not been established between Humphreys, and M'Ciillum. After argument, their Honours said Mr. Sinclair had not made out that Hum-

phreys was agent. Mr. Sinclair submitted that under Section 19S of the Legislature Act, 1908, unless the Court otherwise directed, evidence as to corrupt or illegal practice could be gone into before it was shown that any candidate had anything to do with it. Ho asked the Court to give him permission to do that. After argument, Sir Joshua Williams said there was nothing to prevent Mr. Sinclair prima facie showing if he could that Humphreys was guilty of corrupt illegal practice, and for that purpose- eliciting evidence.. from the witness (Meeban) as to admissions made to witness by Humphreys, but such ndraissions would not be evidence against M'Callum unless it was proved that Humphreys was agent for M'Callum.

Patrick M Penan (recalled) said Humphreys said to him that ho was not looking after, a polling booth this timo as he w,js better paid for not touching one. Witness had a conversation with Wright. Mr. Skerrett said he did not understand the action ;of his learned friend officiously importing into the case peoplo really not concerned in it. Nothing but spite or malice could actuate him. Jlr. Sinclair said he was not going to coll AVright, who was an absent man. It was grossly unfair that the evidence sought should bo brought out. Wright was not there to protect himself. Wright held a commission of tho peace, and Mr. Sinclair maliciously tried to injure Wright without trying to- assist the petition against M'Callum. The Coirrt ought to protect Wright in his absence. Mr. Sinclair said the matter affected the petition. Mr. Justice Chapman asked how it would affect the petition. Mr. Sinclair said the witness'could stand down till Wright ro called.

Sir Joshua Williams said paragraph 25 (relating to Wright ami a wager alleged to have been made) contained matlrr wholly outside the issue they were trying. Mr. Sinclair could not put the thing more strongly if he made a direct allegation against Wright. Section 2j could not. bo considered by the Court. Itmust be struck out. The paragraph did not allege agency of Wright for M'Calliim.

Mr. Sinclair contended that a. strong supporter constituted an agent. Sir Joshuu Williams replied: Not at all.

Joseph William Humphreys said lie denied receiving payment or promise of payment for services rendered to M'Callum in regard to tho election. He denied canvassing for M'Callum at either ballot. There were twelve bottles of beer and one of whisky in tho Seddoii Town Hall on election day. Tho whisky was stolen hy the Bofonn party. Tho licjuor was obtained by a party of live friends, and was not for general consumption. Alexander Hirnie, contractor, said he worked on the railway works at .Mirza in December Inst. Tin knew beer was there lifter the second ballot, lie heard it raid that the beer ramo from the schoolmaster at S-eddon: (Humphrey-.), who was retiring and wniifad the boys to have a drink. Mr, Sinclair Mjd one witness he vn; i to call had met with an accident, Anothor

was not in a fit state to appear. lie would close the evidence for the Mirza incident.

Tasiiian Frank Hull said he acted us secretary to M'l.'allitm at the lato election. He received no payment for his work, and no promi.-o of pnvment. ilo produced his bank book. 'M'Callum paid .several amounts to pay out where necessary. 'J'ho statement produced represented all tlio money paid by M'Callum .disbursed, by witness for election expenses. All disburtomrnU were proper!v relurned by MX'allum to tho registrar. He made no payment, either to Frank Morrison or Humphrey.-. He knew of no payment made in regard to beer ot Mivza. A day or two before Christmas ho got a message through, tho telephone from Jenkins, from \> aid, leanest ing him to ask Dodson's Brewery to send n. cask of beer, rare of Hargood, at Ward, Mating the money would oe sent Inter. Witness save ljs» order to Frank Dodson. A few days after he received a loiter from Jenkins enclosing postal notes for the ber-r. He told Dodson ho had the money, and he could get it by calling for it. Dodson had rot called. The beer had no connection with the election.

To Mr. Sinclair: Hβ had only seen Jenkins once or twice. De did not, know wiiy Dodson had not called for thn money. He did not know if anyone paid money to Jenkins.

A. M'Callum /recalled) said he gave no monej to Jenkins. He left no monev anywhere for him for beer to go to Mirza. Ethelbert Henry Best (recalled by Mr. Sinclair) said entries in tho ledger had not been erased. He put the record as to the use of the cars down nnd the clerk come along in his absence and inserted £5, knowing- that was the usual price fW cars. Witness afterwards wrote over the entry "no charge, as the cars were given gratuitously." The alteration was not made recently.

This closed the cape for the petitioner?. Mr. Skerrett called only onq witness, John Henry Sutherland, chairman of M'Callum's meeting at Grovetown, corToboratins; M'Oillum's evidence about tho treating at Grovetown. He said there, was no connection between tho receipt of i'l 12s. fid. for payment for the um> of Grovetown Hall and tho payment • for drinks.

Mr. Sinclair asked their Honours to go into the Dryden case.

Mr. Skerrett objected. Their Honour? said they would admit evidence, and allow Mr. Skerrott to reserve his objection. Mr. Sinclair had concluded his case, and it was unfair to allow him to reopen tho case.

. Mr. Sinclair said the paper reponu bore out that judgment was reserved on tho point, and he understood thnt the Judges decided thnt when tho ordinary case wns concluded anything could be amended. Ho relied on tho fourth paragraph of the petition, that respondent was guilty of bribery. Sir Joshua Williams said they were asked to amend, adding charges not specified in the original petition, nor when asked for worn particulars of tho charges given. Tho Act said _ specific grounds must bo stated. No other grounds could be entered into. Tho fourth paragraph of tlto petition was only introduced. If it stood alone, it would not apply. Section IRO of tho Act provides that tho petition stating specific grounds must be presented within a certain time. After that time no fresh grounds must be added. They did not think the Court could accede to Jlr. Sinclair's application to amend. Mr. Justico Chapman entirely concurred, and added thai; as to tho two charges tho first amounted to a charge of bribery. Respondent did not offer anything of his own, only what was owing to a man. The second charge, ho did not think could proceed on grounds lof jurisdiction.

Mr. Skerrett addressed tho Court, and submitted that it was patent the petition was founded on unreliable gossip of a small town. The gossip was enshrined in tho petition. AVitnesses were called to substantiate charges formed on gossip without foundation. Mr. Sinclair was zealous in raking up charges to bo brought against M'Ljillum. Investigation on Mr. Sinclair's part was as thorough as Mr. Sinclair could make it. Matters wanting consideration were reduced to three—treating at Grovetown and Okaramio. alleged luring of conveyances on election days, and alleged paymnnt or promise of payment to .Morrison as canvasser. The question of treating always had come under one or other of iho provisions of the statute. Where was an election. upset by one offence of trebling? No treating had been proved in the present case. He quoted tho sections hearing on corrupt and illegal practices, and submitted that the statute loft the grounds of voiding an election nt large. Treating was not a crimo at common law, and a criminal offence could not. bo created. Yin submitted that treating wns giving a drink on tho day of the poll to influence votes on the day of the poll onlv. The grounds of yoidance was left to (lie judicial discretion of the Court. The point was not of great, importance to his client, as ho submitted the offence of treating had not been proved. In regard to Grovetown treating there was no excessive treating. Sutherland paid, and M Callum was present, but was not identified with the "shout." It Mfas not used as an occasion for a demonstration, in M'Callum's favour or influencing opinion in his favour. Treating was a mere incident of the election. Men were, not brought from their homes. They were at a meeting, a:id could have had a drink in any case. All was done with perfect openness. That treating in no way affected t>he first ballot, iis M'Gilluui was defeated, and tho second ballot had to take place. Tho petition might have been confined to the second ballot. As to thn, Okaramio case, what he said in regard to Grovetown 'applied thereto. In regard to vehicles there was no evidence on oath that a contract or payment was made, and on that ground he submitted the Court could not hold the charge proved. Mr. Sinclair expressly said that he regarded M'Calhim as a witness' of truth. They had M'Callum's positive denial ot payment or contract to pay. They had Parker's evidence the same way. Ho pointed out the curious circumstance. The account to Macey came in after the petition had boon lodged. Hogan entered debits of tho vchiclc-s hired in the ordinary way of business, so thai, he could submit it to his directors for approval, and the bill was not meant to be sent out. A new clerk sent it out. As to Hie Morrison charge tlirrn v;as no evidence on oath that Morrison

was nnid for his services as canvasser. What" Morrison said outside the Court was not evidence against M'Callum. He submitted that there was nothing else respondent had to answer. His learned friend referred to the Soddon matter. There was no proof whatever against his client in regard to the Humphreys 'transaction. In regard to the grain store liquor, there was no evidence whatever against M'Callum. Excess of expenses over .£2OO hud not been proved. As to thn other paragraphs no evidence was called at all. Mr. Sinclair admitted that the cars mentioned as lent from Dalgety and Co. were not used for election purposes, _ but _ for theii own business. Mr. Sinclair said ho quito made that admission.

Mr. Sinclair, in addressing the. Court, said that tho Grovetown affair took place thn day before the. election. He, (-(noted authorities to show that if drink v«s given to one roa.Ti V a candidate or his agent with the object of, influencing votes the election must be declared void. Hd relied on Sadd's evidence. M'Callinn asked him to come along fo the hotel, and lower Sutherland's pockets. As ia the contention that it was only a social function, groups of five or seven would have gone tc> the. hotel and paid in cash, not practically the whole population nf rtrovetown, who were at the meeting, would jo, and Sutherland not pay for a flri".ik .it the time, but. waited' till h<? paid £\ 12«. M. for the Grovetown Hall. He

submitted that shout made by M'Callum to inilnenco votes was a political shout (be eve of the election. As to th» grain store liquor. He submitted that Hcalv hid proved that tiodson p'lmittod that beer was in tho office. A. M'Callum, on election day, admitted that drink had been supplied to several people there.

■Regarding the. vehicles from the M'Kenzio Company, M'Callum's lawyer, dealing with a. company, must have known that a man getting'l2s. Cd. r day had no power to give away his employer's vehicles to tho extent of .£3O free Tt was a significant fact that Ilogan did not enter the vehicles in the advance book of the company. <is was usual. Petitioners submitted that he dare not do so. Ilogan also did not bring the waiter before the directors of tho company. Hognn not only pretended (0 supply the vehicles, free, but incurred debts for other vehicles loaned to the M'Kenzie Company. Another significant, fact was Ihaf the seorr.l.iry of the company referred the accounts 11 • l!awy for payment, Tho account against tho vohicJos was entered in tho conjpanj'B

bonks. Tlie account was rendered to Macc.v afier tho petition was lodged, and repudiated as a matter cf form bvMncey. Yet Slacey complained of u vehicle being diverted lor n wedding party. Would ho do this ii' they were a gift? Porker or (iooiliimn had no right, as M'Callnm ought, as a lawyer, tu know, to give, Iho vehicles ot (lie company as a gift', Goodman being only martgagce, <uitl Parker a incre shareholder. As to Parker's cars, it was proved that Parker made M out of the use of M'C'alhim's car. That was proved by WilVon. Thai was equivalent to M'Ciillum paying £i for the use of one of Parker's cars, as equiviiiont for cash, giving ,1 car. Tlint brought the contract within tho four corners of the Act. Regarding the Morrison charges, Morrison, had consulted Widen whether to nccept the offer of ,£1 per dny. Tie submitted that was tho truth nf the exact transaction. Morrison nlso admitted it to ilealy and others. It was absurd to suppose o working ninn would work four or five days for nothing. Macoy denied tho contract. .Sir Joshua Williams: Is there any evidence of that conlract? Mr. Sinclair, continuing, said tttey only bnrl Morrison's statement.?. As to the Tvlirza beer transaction, why was it rnnf. the entry in Dodson's book was marked M'Callum instead nf Jenkins, who ar. cording to Bull's evidence, ordered it? Why was not Jenkins called P Tiio Court adjourned ot .i p.m. till tomorrow, but Sir Josbua William? said it was doubtful if they would be able to give their decision then. ■