MR. REED UNSEATED

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2457, 10 May 1915, Page 7

MR. REED UNSEATED

—4 election court finding IMPROPER OFFER TO RIVAL CANDIDATE disqualified for a year (Bp Telegraph—Press■ Association.) Auckland, Mas 3Mr. Justice Chapman and Mr. Justice Hosking delivered their judgment at tho Supreme Court this morning in respect jjftho Bay of Islands election petition. Tho election declared void and Mr. Vernon Reed disqualified from standing for a year, Sir John Findlay, K.C., aim Messrs. P. Levi and W. P. Endean appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. J. •R. Reed, K.C., and Mr. R. M'Veagh for the respondent, Mr.. Vernon Herbert Reed. There are numerous allegations in the petition, all of which, except three were abandoned either before or at the trial. The first of these three is that the respondent, by himself and through his agent, Mr. J. C. Johnson, of Kauri, made an offer or promise to induce Mr. George Wilkinson, one of the candidates for the seat, to procure the return of the respondent to serve in the House of Representatives, such offer or promise being an appointment to the Legislative Council, which offer or promise the respondent and Mr. Johnson represented to Mr. Wilkinson they were authorised by the Government then in office to make, on condition that Mr. Wilkinson would retire from the election and so procure for respondent the votes, or a substantial number of votes, that would be cast for Mr.. Wilkinson if the latter went to the poll. The_ second charge- is: that respondent and his agent made the further offer or promise to Mr. Wilkinson, in order to induce the latter to procure, or endeavour to procure, the return of respondent to serve in the House of Representatives, that if Mr. Wilkinson would relire from the election to enable the respondent to be elected, the respondent would resign his seat in the Souse at the end of twelve months from the date of his election, and would then use ail his influence to have Mr. Wilkinson elected in respondent's place as a.member of the House. The third charge is that respondent, by his agent, one J. Jacentho, sen., of Peria, offered and promised Mr. Wilkinson to induce him to procure or endeavour to procure the return of the respondent to serve in the House a chequo of an amount equivalent to all the expenses Wilkinson had been put to in preparation for his candidature for tho election, and in connection with such candidature, on condition that the. said Wilkinson would retire from the election for purposes aforesaid. At the election the respondent and Mr. Wilkinson stood in the Government interest, and a third candidate, Dr. Buck, in that of the Opposition. The respondent was returned by a majority of 183 votes. Broadly speaking, the principal charge is that the respondent offered or promised to procure a seat for Mr! George Wilkinson in the Legislative Council in order to induce Mr Wilkinson to procure or endeavour to procure the return of the respondent to serve in the House of Representatives. First Charge Proved, 'After.reviewing the evidence'at great length, -Their Honours said with regard to .the ,charge made of offering Mr. Wilkinson his expenses if he would retire "We do. not consider this has been established. It is_ true Mr. Jacentho made an. offer, but in our opinion he did so without any authority, express or implied, emanating from respondent. The result of the inquiry -is that we hold the first charge to be proved, and determine and certify that the election of the respondent to the House of Representatives at the poll taken on the tenth day of December, 1914, in respect of the Bay of Islands electoral district was and is void. "We desire to say that all the witnesses, including respondent, gave their evidence in such a way as to commend themselves as witnesses of truth according to their recollections. We may add that there was no special conflict of evidence beyond suoh as we believe arose only from faded memory or mis- . conception. The facts essential to our finding are indeed supplied by the evidence of the respondent himself, which, in our opinion, was given frankly and fully. It left'the impression on our minds that the candidate was not conscious that in what he did he was committing what we have held to bo a breach of the law. The same remark applied to,the other witnesses who were engaged in the matter. "We might say with Tegard to Mr. Jacentho that he is an old man who stated that his memory was failing him. This'was apparent, for he could not recollect and somewhat departed from— we believe in good faith—certain statements which he was understood to have made some few weeks before to a shorthand -writer and- a solicitor acting for the petitioners. He further disclosed at the trial the influences which led to his proposal to Mr. Wilkinson, matters unknown to either party until the trial. These are matters to be considered in weighing his evidence on the third charge as against that of the respondent. Neither party imputed any want of good faith to Mr. Jacentho, and both parties joined in asking the Court to grant him a 'certificate of indemnity as we are of opinion that he answered .the questions put to him fully and faithfully to the oest of his recollection. We grant a certificate accordingly. We also consider that the respondent and Mr. Johnson are entitled t« similar certificates on their applying for the same. Disqualified for One Year. "With regard to the period for which the incapacities the respondent comes under by virtue of our determination are to continue, we fix that at one year from this, date, the maximum under the Act being three years. As arranged at the conclusion of the hearing we reserve for further discussion all questions of costs. "To the argument that the respondent could not offer the seat," said Their Honours, "the answer is that it is clear that Mr. Johnson understood from him that it would undoubtedly be given if Mr. Wilkinson retired. Tho respondent himself says that Mr. Wilkinson would got tho seat if lie would nccepii it. Mr. Johnson at that date believed there were grounds for saying so- (See his letter to Mr. Massey of January 27, 1914.) Mr. Wilkinson says that the offer was nothing new to him. The respondent had, as far back as 1913, suggested first Mr. Johnson and afterwards Mr. Wilkinson as suitable persons to appoint to the Council because no resident North of Auckland Bad been cn the Council since the death Si Tti-i .'"' aTl| s, eleven years before. Mr- Wilkinson had already been asked whether he was willing to accept the posi«onr . distinct offer now comes from the sitting member, and the political influence which naturally may be presumed to be possessed by the respondent m that character was a guarantee that the offer was not illusory. The evidence established that the respondent assured Mr. Johnson that the offer had a sufficient basis of certainty in it eo that on the strength of it Mr! Wilklnrort could safely retire and not be disappointed. It was intended that this proposal should be as firm and certain as th& .tfiSQondfm&'s alternative jiromise

b to retire. While we regard those facts as sufficient to establish the offer of tho office, we think that if they do not reach that mark, they imply a promise to procure tho office, or to endeavour to procure it, as fully as did the letter in the Wellington Suburbs election by tho assurance of tho seat given by tho respondent. Thero was at least implied the promiso that ha would act in favour of getting it for him. ' "It was argued," pointed out Their Honours, "that the offer was made bofore the candidature of Mr. Wilkinson was publicly announced. We do not .think that material. . Mr. Wilkinson's intention in April to become a candidate was known to the respondent. -If Mr. Wilkinson had retired, his retirement would have been an act done in pursuance of a plan to ensure tho respondent's return. That would -liavo been an endeavour. Similarly, if no rci tircment in point of fact took place, but , the appointment, was made, and Mr. Wi'kinson thereby rendered no longer eligible as a candidate, then the acceptance of the appointment being in pursuance of the plau would have been an - endeavour, an offer of an office. To induce a person to endoavour to secure a return is, as we have eeen, within the prohibition of Sub-section C. "With respect to the second charge 1 founded on the respondent's undertaking to resign at the end of twelve 1 months," said Their Honours, "we, as already indicated, regard this as but a part and parcel of one offer and not as the subject of a distinct charge. We do not think this could bo the basis of two distinct charges of bribery. We therefore pass over this charge as included in the first."