DISMISSED.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1390, 25 March 1912, Page 8

DISMISSED.

WAIRAU ELECTION PETITIONLAW ON "TREATING." HOOAN AND niS VEHICLES. IJJr TDlecraph-Press Association.) Blenheim, March 23. Tho judgment of (lie Court in tho pelitinn forwarded to the Chief Justice by William Carr, John O'Sullivnn, and John Lanlcow against the return of Kieliord M'Ce.Uum as representative of fho Wnirau district was delivered at noon to-day. Sir Joshua Williams and Jlr. Justice Chapman were on tho bench. Mr. Sinclair was for tho petitioners, anil Mr. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. Mills, for respondent. The petition was dismissed. Tho result was cheered in court, but the demonstration was suppressed. In tho course of tho judgment, tno Court pointed out that tho commission (if corrupt and illegal practices involved serious penal consequences, and disqualification from holding any public or judicial office. In order to oslablish guilt, the sumo degree of proof was required as in on ordinary criminal case. Tho evidence must be such as to exclude any reasonable possibility of innocence.

Tho Court had held that there was no allegation that Wright was acting in any way as M'Callum's agent; tho charge against Wright in regard to making a bet of £'lti was irrelevant to the inquiry; no evidence was offered in support of the allegations that M'Lauchlnn, slated to be au agent of M'Callum's, made several bets oil the result, or in support of tho allegations that Humphreys was engaged as canvasser.

Tho charges therefore which the Court had to consider were charges of: (1) ."Treating," (2) contracting for tho payment on account of the conveyance of voters, (3) expenditure on election in excess of the amount allowed by Parliament, and (i) in respect of tho engagement of Morrison.

A marked peculiarity of the case was that no important allegation was proved, or attempted to be proved, and supported by means of direct evidence in tho ordinary sense. Counsel for tho petitioners h,id himself been under the necessity of endeavouring to prove his case almost entirely by tho means of witnesses who, when examined, turned out to bo either hostile, or merely adverse. In allowing great latitude to counsel for the petitioners, in virtually cross-examining witnesses who iu ordinary circumstances would'not have been held to have exhibited the usual manifestations of hostility, ..the Court did not- wish it lo he supposed it had attempted to lay down any rule as to the manner in which such cases should be or might be conducted. Thero was absolutely no evidence in support of tho allegation that M'Calhvm gave certain electors money to buy liquor for the "treating" of electors at Mirza, and nothing from which it could be reasonably inferred that Humphreys, in supplying drink at Soddon, was acting as agent tor M'Callum, or that ho was any more than a voluntary worker on the Liberal side.

With respect to tho supplying of liquor at Grove Road, evidence justified the conclusion that it was not brought there to be used for the purpose of the Parliamentary election, but iu connection with the licensing poll. Thero was, further, nothing to slwy that M'Callum had anything to do with tho liquor brought to his office.

Dealing with the charges of "treating" at Grovetown and Okaramio, these" were the only instances proved ngainst the respondent of supplying liquor during the whole electoral campaign, in tho course of which he had delivered 42 addresses. Ihoro could he no suggestion 'that the supplying of liquor on these two occasions was part of a scheme of "treating'' with the view of influencing the electors generally. The circunistance« attending the supplying of drink at Grovetown were not sufficient to show that drink was supplied by Sutherland with any intention either on his part or on the part of M'Callum of influencing the result of the'election, or the votes of, the electors.

Section 210 of the Legislature Act, defining tho offence of treating, was limited to treating on polling day, and did not relate to treating on any-other dny. By this Act the term "corrupt practice" meant bribery, treating, undue influence, or personation, as defined by the Act. or recognised by the common law of Parliament. It was difficult to say wha_t, apart from any statute or common law of Parliament in regard to treating, was tho present law of England, as contained in the first section of the Corrupt Practices Act, ISS3. Having quoted this Act and Lord Halsbury's definition their Honours said that in order to amount to a charge of treating itith corrupt intention it must be proved that thai'corrupt intention was the intention on the part of a person treating in order lo influence votes. Whero on exceptional occasions a very small amount of drink was given to a man who was in independent circumstances, it would be absurd to suggest that drink so given would bo likely to influence his vote or that, the intention of tho person giving it was to influence his vote. In any case, looking at all tho circumstances, it was reasonable and probable that the effect of alleged treating would be to influence the result of an election or to influence, tho vote of individual voters. It might well be inferred that it was the intention of the person treating that this effect should follow.

The charges witli respect to the alleged making of contracts for the hire of Vehicles had given rise to somo diflicuity. Referring to the use of Parker's ears, tho Court hold that M'Calhim was not seriously attacked as to his veracity. He appeared to the Court to give his evidenco candidly, antl their Honours saw no reason to doubt that he gave it truthfully. If his version of this arrangement was accepted—and they did accept it as true —then they found that Parker's account was substantially the same. "There was therefore no evidence to support the charge. Tho statement by Parker to Wiffen that lie (Parker) made £i out of M'Callum's car was not evidence against the respondent. It was hardly to lw supposed that the respondent was so simple as to fail to appreciate the fact that the transaction suggested would amount to a payment, and difficult to suppose that he would deliberately enter into it. Tho Court saw no reason to doubt tho statement that the lending of respondents car to Parker had nothing to do with his getting Parker's cars for election purposes. In regard to tho use of Mr. Best's cars, tho Court saw no reason to doubt tho truth of respondent's evidenco. The alleged hiro of vehicles from tho •M'Konzic Carrying Company had occupied the attention of the Court for a very Ion." time. It was objected that Ilogan, tho company's manager, had no authority, actual or presumed, to enter into an arrangement to givo the • use of vehicles 1 gratuitously. Tho Court was satisfied that so long as he acted honestly, a person in respondent s position was not bound to look beyond Hogan. They woro satisfied upon respondent s own'evidenco, confirmed by Hognn's, thatrespondent never intended to make a contract or in any way render himself liable to pay for vehicles. Hogan s whole mode of dealing with the matter was suspicious and objectionable. Respondent, however, had nothing to do with the internal affairs of the company, or With Hognn's relations with his directors. As to the circumstances of the hiring by Hogan for the comtiany of two outside sets of horses and drivers these were matters which Hogan thought lit to arrange himself. The Court diil not find in this that h« was acting as agent for tie respondent. Xeither bad the Court: anything to do with any hopo which Hogan might possibly entertain that i» course of time ho might receive voluntary payment. In discussing the cliari;e regarding excessive election expenses, (heir Honours said: "It might liavn been expected that the petitioners would have shown some foundation for tho grave and specific charges set out in the particulars. It is in n high degree improper that such charges should be made without some solid ground to support them." With respect to the charges as to the employment of Frank Morrison for payment, the petitioners' case was supported upon unsworn and circumstances giving rise to suspicion. Kespondent's case rested upon tho sworn testi. mouy of all persons implicated. 'Where on the one side there was sworn evidence of persons whoso characters were- iinimpeached, and on the other unsworn statements and suspicious circumstances, (he former mus-t prevail. Charge? relating to Morrison had not been mado out. The nbovo observation applied to the bulk of tho charges in tho petition, "It is not a :

question of oath against oatli," Bald thfe Court, "but only circumstauccs giving riso to suspicion against the sworn testimony of persons whose characters wero not impeached. In such circumstances, in order to override sworn testimony, tho circumstances must give rise not to mero suspicion, but to certainty. That is not the case here. If it had been, tlio inevitable conclusion would have boon that M'Callum and Macey, at any rate, would have been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury. Wo arc satisfied of the truthfulness of the evidence of both these witnesses. "We are of opinion that the ease for the petitioners bus failed, nud Mr. Richard M'Callum has been, duly elected. Wo shall report accordingly to the Hon. tlio Speaker. The Court orders that petitioners do pay respondent costs of, and incidental to, the petition, and the trial I hereof, to l>o taxed by the Uegistrar pur« suant to tlio rules." »