SUED BY A PRIVATE INFORMER.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1987, 18 February 1914, Page 7

SUED BY A PRIVATE INFORMER.

FINED 5500 PER VOTE.

TOTAL DAMAGES £13,000. By Telegraph-Press AEEodatlon-CopyTiirh* London, February 16. ■In. tho King's Bench Division of the High Court, William Bird, a common informer, claimed £13,000 and costs against Sir Stuart Samuel, that amount representing the aggregate'penalties incurred by Sir Stuart for voting in the House of Commons while his firm was tho contractor for tho supply of silver to tho India Office. . Mr. Justice Kowlatt, under a statute of tho year 1801, awardol £500 for each of his twenty-sk votes. He granted a stay of execution. Counsel for plaintiff pointed out that an Indemnity Bill was •proposed, and asked that the money bo paid into Court. This was refused. Sir Stuart Samuel is a member of the firm of Samuel, Montagu, and Co., bankers. Some months ago the firm made largo purchases of silver for the Indian Government, deriving the usual profit. It is explained that tlie Secretary of State had reason to believe that some speculation for a rise- in silver was in progress, and therefore thought it well to make the purchases as secretly as possible, and to employ a firm that had not hitherto acted iii this connection for the India Office. There, aro only four firms acting as silver brokers on a large scale, two of ■ which had previously been, employed, and Messre. Samuel, Montagu, and Co. were considered tho more suitable of the other two. The English Statute 22, George 111, cap. 45, which is apparently the ground upon which the private individual referred to established his claim to proceed against the member for .Whitechapel, provides that any person, (not being- an incorporated company), under contract, or who enters into any contract for, on account of, the Public Service is disqualified from being olected to or sitting in Parliament; and (Clause 9) any such person sitting or voting in Parliament shall forfeit tho sum of ,£SOO for every day on which he shall sit or vote (in the House) to any person, who shall sue for the fame in any of His Majesty's Courts at Westminster, and the money so forfeited shall be recovered by the person or persons so suing, with."full costs of such in anv of tho said Conrts. A reference to .Eogers's Law of Elections discloses only one analogous case —Thompson v. PeaTce, 1819-and in this instance the penalty was not recovered, because the Court held that, as tho defendant was a sub-contractor, he did not come within the impropriety which the Act was framed to prevent—it could only extend to those who came immediately in contact with the Government. Under the New Zealand Legislature Act, 1908, a member of Parliament who so contracts is Cisnunlifiecl and linble to a penalty of ,£SO for everv day whereon ho site and votes knowing himself to be disqualified. Any nerson_ can sue in anv Court of Competent jurisdiction. Sir Stuart Ramunl .resigned ■his scat in the House when.-ho became involved m the affair, but w.is re-elecUl and it was understood an Indemnity Bill would be passed to meet his case.