DEMOCRAT CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Evening Star, Issue 22445, 16 September 1936, Page 14

DEMOCRAT CAMPAIGN FINANCE

CLAIM BY ORGANISER OFFICIALS JOINED AS DEFENDANTS [Per United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, September 15. A sequel to the General Election was heard in the Magistrate’s Court to-day, when several well-known personalities in what was the Democrat Party were sued by Harry Charles Baulf, political organiser, claiming to recover from them the balance of salary and expenses allegedly owing for work as Auckland organiser for the party. Mr Wyvern Wilson was on the bench. Mr J. F. W. Dickson appeared for the plaintiff, Mr A. K. North for William Goodfellow (who was in court), Mr H. J. Butler for A. E. Davy (not present), Mr A. St. Clair Brown for J. B. Donald (present), and Mr B. Elliot for T. C. A. Hislop. The last named was not present. but his evidence was taken at Wellington and commented on by Mr Dickson. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were officers of an incorporated body known as the New Zealand Democrat Political Organisation, of which the defendant (J. B. Donald) was chairman and Spencer Clark, also a defendant, was secretary, while the_ defendants Goodfellow, Davy, and Hislop were officers or members of the executive. Baulf claimed that in October, 1934, he was employed by Davy at a salary of £7 a week, with expenses, and claimed the recovery of £195, the balance owing. Mr Dickson said that Baulf was engaged in 1934 by Davy, who said that Goodfellow would be finding £25,000 — £5,000 himself, two others £5,000 each, and he was arranging the balance. Goodfellow subsequently confirmed this, saying he would finance the Auckland Executive for at least six months. Goodfellow continued the payments for some months until he fell out with Davy and resigned. “ The position of Hislop is an extraordinary one,” said Mr Dickson, commenting on Hislop’s evidence taken at Wellington. “ Hislop said he would devote his life and talents to the services of his country and the cause of the Democrat Party. He, in fact, received £3,250. of which he alleges he was to receive £I,OOO for himself and three payments of £IOO per month.” This apparently was done, Mr Dickson said, to placate his partners for the time spent on the Democrat. Party. Hislop admitted having received only two monthly payments of £IOO per month. Mr Elliot; He admits nothing. Mr Dickson contended that as a member of the party Hislop was partly liable for this debt. Mr Elliot said the statements made by Mr Dickson were incorrect. "As far ns Goodfellow was concerned, continued Mr Dickson, he and Davy on September 12, 1934, entered into an agreement to form a party. Davy was to receive £1,250 a year for three years and the committee was _to be Davy, Goodfellow. and two nominees of Goodfellow. “ This is an extraordinary condition of affairs,” he added. “ The objects of the Democrat Party were to promote and maintain loyalty to the King, the British Empire, and the Dominion of New Zealand and the Constitution, but wo are now looking to tins organisation to pay its debts. As for J. B. , Donald, he has promised from time to time that he would personally see that the debt was paid. . The Democrat Party is not a registered organisation, and, therefore, all the members of the executive are personally liable.” Mr Dickson then quoted a number of legal authorities before he called the plaintiff, EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF. Harry Charles Baulf said he was a political organiser and was connected with the United Party in 1928, tho National Coalition Party in 1931, and tbo Democrat Party at tho last election. “ When Davy offered me tho position I had reason to make inquiries about the financial position of the party,” said Baulf. “Davy at first said my salary would bo £lO a week and expenses, but in October of 1934 he said the finance was not all forthcoming and that my salary would be £6 a week and expenses.” Mr Dickson; Did you at any time discuss the matter with Goodfellow? Witt less: Yes, In September of 1934 he told me that what Davy said was quite right. He said ho was going in with or going behind Davy to form a new party. Ho also said ho would be responsible for £5,000 himself. Ho arranged that 1 was to get (id a mile for tho use of my car. I commenced my duties on October 8, 1934. Goodfellow and I looked at offices and decided on one in Gifford’s Buildings, in Vulcan lane. Goodfellow guaranteed the rent and paid £2O into the bank. Witness said that on October 29 a local executive was formed, J. Hislop, S. Rickards, and himself as secretary being authorised to sign cheques. It was also decided that there should be an inner organisation committee, Davy stating that there must be an inner executive to run tho whole party, as finance and other things could not bo mentioned at the big executive meetings. Baulf said that J. B. Donald became chairman of the Auckland Executive Committee in August, 1935, and Denny became secretary and treasurer in June, 1935. Up to the middle of January, 1935, witness got his cheques fairly regularly, Goodfellow resigned front the organisation in August, 1935. A statement of liabilities (produced) on June 18, 1935, showed £ll3 10s wages owing, to witness. This statement was drawn up by Denny. It was passed for payment by tbo Dominion Executive, but witness was paid part only, a balance of £SO 5s 8d being left owing. Witness said that on December 14, 1935, Denny drew up another balance sheet (produced), which showed £SO 5s Sd balance of wages owing to him. This amount had never been paid. Witness said he incurred expenses totalling £B2 8s lOd in the interests of the organisation which had not been paid to him. After the election J. B. Donald took all the office furnishings and books. The lock was changed and witness could not get into the office Among the books were the account books. Witness had not seen them since. Mr Dickson then produced a letter from Denny. Mr Elliot (for Hislop) : I object to this letter going in. It does not concern tho case at all. Mr Wilson, S.M.: Neither letter has any reference to any claim for wages being mado by Baulf. Continuing his evidence, Baulf said he knew of the agreement between Davy and Goodfellow. He produced a copy of the agreement. Witness stated that his wages were to be £6 a week plus expenses and his daughter was to receive £l. The daughter was dismissed by Donald and witness’s wage was raised to £7 by Davy. Donald’s private secretary. Miss Foster, took over the work of witness’s daughter. Witness said he was not present at the meetings of tho Dominion Exccu-

tive, but had attended most of the Auckland Executive meetings. Goodfellow resigned in August, 1935. Witness said he had discussed tho outstanding account with Donald, who bad said the amount had not been paid because there was no money then available. At two meetings of the organisation when finances were being discussed Donald said the accounts bad to be paid and lie would see that this was none. Witness’s solicitor had written to Donald and Davy demanding payment of the account which witness claimed was owing to him. Witness’s solicitor had also written to the secretary of the Democrat Party. Wellington, demanding payment of £lB4 7s 8J

which witness was claiming. Witness personally had nut received any reply. Davy was the chief executive officer of the party and was also on tho Finance Committee, Ho collected funds for the party, tho_ funds being controlled by the Dominion Executive. Witness said he remembered receiving a letter from Davy in June, 1935, in which ho asked for more details of an account covering tho expenses of tho Auckland office, an item in the account being £ll3 due to witness. Witness had been unable to get the account books covering the Auckland office. He had asked Denny about them, but Denny said he bad not got them. Continuing, witness said, ho know that Hislop’s evidence had been taken in Wellington, Hislop was head of the party, and witness had heard him say from the platform: “I now dedicate myself and my all to the service of this party and my country.” _ Witness had read Hislop’s evidence in which he admitted receiving £I,OOO and two sums of £IOO per month. Witness did not know what became of the balance of £2,050. Witness had not scon any balance sheet by Hislop to show what had been done with tho money. WITNESS CROSS-EXAMINED. Cross-examined by Mr North, witness said the idea of £lO a week and reasonable expenses first came from Davy. Mr North: I submit that Goodfellow, who contributed » substantial amount, did not tell you he would provide £5,000. —He told me he would provide or secure £5,000. Provide or secure?—Provide. I submit it was Davy who mentioned tho £5,000 and not Goodfellow.—They both did. Goodfellow says that irrespective of what you received later your original salary was only £4 a week.—No. It was £6. Counsel produced cheque book butts of two cheques showing payments to witness for the months of October and November of £l6. Witness said that in addition to those cheques he received a payment from Davy. Mr North: So far as Goodfellow knew your salary was £4 a week?— Yes, perhaps so. In reply to Mr North witness said there were three stages in the party. In the first period from October, 1934, to January, 1935, Goodfellow was spending a considerable amount of money to start tbo organisation. A rift occurred between Goodfellow and Davy over questions of policy. Goodfellow interested himself in the new party as tbo result of endeavours to secure reciprocal Frcetrade. By January the policy was changing and Davy was trying to get people like Donald. He was spreading his net a little wider. “You mean he was using a smaller mesh?” asked the Magistrate. (Laughter.) Witness denied that Davy had ever told him that his expenses were too high, but Donald had questioned them once. He was told to stay at the best hotels and represent the party in a suitable manner. “I suppose you obeyed that in the letter and the spirit? ” asked Mr North. Witness said be had not applied to Goodfellow before the court action. “ What did you do after the election?” asked Mr North. “ I had to clean up the mess,” replied witness. “ You did not have to write any congratulations to successful candidates, so your duties should not have been very onerous,” said counsel. “ I had to meet the creditors,” replied witness. Cross-examined by Mr Brown, witness said that Davy alone superintended his work. Ho was quite positive that Donald had not said he would do his best for witness, but that he had said ho would see that tho money owing was paid. Mr Brown; Is there any reason why he should say that? Because of our relationship. Mrs Donald is my cousin. Yon knew at that time there was a considerable sum owing to Donald himself?—A fair amount. if Donald says he never intended to guarantee you personally do you say lie is wrong?—l do not know what he intended. Witness was cross-examined at length on a cheque for £2l be bad received from Donald in September. Ho said he asked Davy for some money, and Davy told him to get three weeks’ wages from Donald and Davy would forward a cheque for the amount. Witness dchietl ever having received such a cheque from Davy. When Mr Brown had finished his cross-examination tho hearing was adjourned until Thursday.