DEMOCRAT FINANCE

Evening Star, Issue 22447, 18 September 1936, Page 8

DEMOCRAT FINANCE

AUCKLAND ORGANISER'S CLAIM THE LEADER'S EVIDENCE [Per United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, September 18. In his evidence, taken at Wellington and lead in the Magistrate’s Court, Auckland, in tho Baulf ease, Mr Hislop, late leader of the Democrat Party, stated that he knew the plaintiff acted as organiser for the party in Auckland, but knew nothing of the terms of his appointment. His (Hislop’s) function was to act ns leader of the candidates in the field, and address meetings throughout the country. He was not a member of the executive. Replying to Mr Mazergarb, Hislop said he received a cheque for £3,250 or thereabouts made payable to his order, and handed to him by Davy while on tour. He was to hold that money for the general purposes of the party, and he lodged it to the credit of a Hislop trust account. He did not pay the money to the treasurer, as he was expressly asked by Davy to keep it in his own account. The treasurer knew this, and no question was ever raised about it. Witness made many payments out of this account with the concurrence of the chief executive, Davy, and to tho knowledge of the treasurer. Prior to General Election day the whole of the money had been applied in accordance with the arrangements made by the chief executive officer. This arrangement included a personal payment to witness. The total of this amount was £I,OOO. This was paid to protect him to some extent against the anticipated financial loss resulting from a sixmonths’ campaign. Actually he had suffered a heavy loss through the campaign. ' Apart from money out of the £3,250 he had an arrangement 'with Davy for £IOO monthly for three months to be paid to. his office under the arrangement he made with his partners. Default was made in the payment of one sum of £IOO, and witness paid it to his partners out of his own money. After the election he ascertained that an amount exceeding £1,200 was owing by the party for election expenses to various creditors. Witness had paid, purely ex gratia, approximately £7OO out of his own moneys since the election towards the payment of election debts. He did this because he did not like people to remain unpaid for services rendered. The organisation with which his name was was personally a loser of a very considerable sum.