TAU HENARE'S VOTE.

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2401, 5 March 1915, Page 6

TAU HENARE'S VOTE.

AN ALLEGED THREAT. (Br Telegraph.—Special Correspondent*! , Whangarei, March .4. Evidence was given at the Northern Maori inquiry to-day that- Mr. Tau Henare had been threatened witli a petition against his return if he did not vote for the Opposition. When the Judges dismissed the petition, Mr. J. R. Reed, K. 0., counsel for the respondent, applied for costs on the ground of special circumstances. The question of costs, ho said, was entirely at the discretion .of the Court, the whole of the evidence on which the Court had acted had been produced by the petitioners. All the information available to the Court was available to the petitioners, and they came to the Court with their eyes open. There was a more serious position, because, he declared, the petition was not honestly presented. It was presented for a purpose. Mr. Justice Hosking asked if Mr. E. J. Prendergast, counsel for the petitioners, could offer any reason why costs should not be allowed. Mr._ Prendergast: "Admittedly there , and petitioners were entitled to have them investigated by the Court. It was a case that properly came before the Court. Undoubtedly a large number of Natives had been disfranchised." The Court decided to hear the circum--stances.

,^- r .; Reed said that at the meeting of the Mormon Synod at Te Horo, Nau l araon6, one of the petitioners, publicly stated that unless Tau Henare would agree to support the. present Opposition the petition would be presented against his return. After the petition was presented, he was approached by Mr. Dennehy, organiser for the Opposition Party, and told that if he would give an undertaking to support the Opposition it would be arranged that the petition should be withdrawn. He (counsel) had sworn evidence in support of this. He suggested that the petition had been lodged for the purpose of influencing Jdenare to make a promise he should n °t fairly have been asked to make. - ,Tau Henare. said lie attended -the meeting, of the Synod at Te Horo, .though not a Mormon himself. Nau i'araoue and about 100 others were atthe meeting and many were outside. Witness supported Mr.-lleed's statement, and said h4 would give no answer until he had conferred with the old n, en whom he called "my parents." Mr. Reed: Later on you were approached by someone else. Mr. Prendergast objected, as the evim? 6 T, no ' l a ffeot the petitioners. t our t upheld the' point. Mr. Prendergast (to Henare): You " a ve been interviewed by both sides? — No. Only one side." Was there a discussion as to your views?—"No,'not that I know of. raraone asked whether I was prepared to explain what side I was on, I replied tliat I had heard, that a petition was being lodged against me, but I was not going to be turned inside out until the petition came up for hearing." Mr. Reed: Then the threat came. ■ Mr. Prendergast: You were told that 5"?!? supported one party , the petition would be withdrawn ?—"Yes. Mr. Deniiehy told me the same thing." ' Mr. Justice Hosking: We can't take that. •

Mr. Reed: I have the witnesses if my friend disputes the evidence. Mr. Prendergast: I don't dispute it. Surely that cannot be construed into a threat'( As authorities were not available in Whangarei, the argument on the whole question of costs' was adjourned to Auckland to be heard at a date to be fixed.