FINANCING AN ELECTION

Evening Star, Issue 22457, 30 September 1936, Page 13

FINANCING AN ELECTION

THE DEMOCRAT SPLIT ORGANISER’S CLAIM AGAINST OFFICIALS IPer United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, September 29. The adjourned hearing of the claim by Harry Charles Baulf against the officials of the former Democrat Pro ty was resinned in the Alngistrate’s Court before Air Wyvern Wilson, when the defence was opened. Mr North, representing Goodfellow said the principal question was whether the plaintiff looked to the organisation, or whether lie was entitled to look beyond tho organisation to individual members. Counsel outlined the history of tho formation of tho party. Ho said that after tho break occurred with Goodfellow in January, 1935, as the letters between them showed, Davy began to “flirt” with Donald, who was then coming to the fore. An interesting fact that emerged from tho accounts was that Donald got hack the £1,500 that he guaranteed to the party funds, having received two cheques for over £7OO each. “ A peculiar thing,” Mr North said, “is that Banlf has been paid all that was owing to him. His relatives, of whom Donald is one, say that this money is a Joan, so whether this is really an action by Banff or his relatives who wish to reimburse themselves canndt bo ascertained. The Central Executive has not been sued.” William Goodfellow, company director, said ho had never exercised the right to appoint an executive. It was originally intended that the party should consist of 14 or 15 prospective members of Parliament whom ho should nominate. Tho party was to foster reciprocal trade, and outside ot that ho had no general interest in politics, ami did not intend to stand himself. He eventually agreed to the constitution of the party. “ 1 never at any period intended to put in more than about £1,000,” stated witness. “It is untrue to say that 1 was to put in £5,000 as a subscription to the party fund of £15.000.” There was no understanding, witness added, that any money he put into tho party fund was a gift. Witness said that at one of tho first meetings of tho party Davy mentioned that he would like to engage Baulf as local organiser. Banlf came to sec witness and asked witness if the party was financial, as ho had had some unhappy experiences of political parties. Witness said that ho paid Baulf’s salary for two months mid kept tho party going for six months. In November witness undertook to raise £IOO a month for four months prior to instituting a public campaign tor the fund in Alarch. Up to then he understood that the plaintiff had been paid. The funds were sufficient to pay him. Up to the date of witness’s resignation witness had paid £1,516 into the party, including money collected from friends. In addition he made loans to Davy which had been repaid. Witness had not been repaid any of tho £1,516. Witness said J. B. M‘Kinney, country organiser, received £6 a week. Witness paid several cheques to M'Kinney. Witness said he did not attend any meetings of tho Auckland executive after Alarch, and was not present at any meetings-which J. B. Donald attended. Witness said he knew nothing ot tho £3,000 fund controlled bv T. C. A. Hislop and Davy. Witness said that he would consider such a fund most improper. In June witness suggested to Donald that he should call up his guarantees so that tho party could be put back on a sound basis. Witness said he would never have agreed to pay a ear allowance of 6d a mile. He considered 4d a mile sufficient. In answer to Air Dickson witness said ' ho would accept no responsibility in this case even for moneys claimed before his resignation. He admitted being a member of the executive and paying Davy’s salary up to August, 1935. . “ I attended meetings up to then to try to salvage the party, stated witness. “ X had gone off the rails. Reciprocal trade as a policy, which was the only thing X was interested in, had been relegated to the background. The party’s finances had also gone oft the rails. There was not much money owing, but I objected to tho collecting of money from people whose political feelings were opposed to the original policy of the party.” At no time, witness said, had he told Baulf he would not be responsible for his wages, but Baulf was at a meeting in March when witness said he would find no more money for the party. Up to August, however, witness continued to pay Davy’s salary, having promised to do so. Witness said that at the last meeting of the central executive in Wellington ho had made a final attempt to regain control ot the party by gaining control of the finances. “If I could control the finances 1 could dictate the policy,’’ said Goodfellow. “ That is politics, is it?” asked Mr Wilson. “ Unfortunately, yes, sir, witness replied. ~ Witness said he understood that Baulf’s wages were to be £4. That was what Davy had told him. He would repudiate any further claim for wages because he did not know or any arrangement other than that the plaintiff should be paid £4 a week and be engaged by the month. Prior to 1934 witness had subscribed to and supported the Reform Party. He stated in answer to Air Butler ho bad helped to form the Democrat Party purely to advocate reciprocal trade. Witness agreed that the Government had in 1933 cancelled a contract for the supply of coal to the railways in which the New Zealand Cooperative Dairy Company was concerned. On the production by Air Butler of a letter of which Goodfellow admitted authorship Air North raised an objecttion on the grounds that it was irreevant. “ Alauy things could have been said about the inner workings of -his business that were better left unsaid,” remarked Air North.

The Magistrate ruled the letter out of order.

With regard to wages, Goodfellow told Mr Butler that probably the wages agreed to be paid to Baulf were £4 a week, and it was subsequently increased to £6. After the organisation was formed he took it that the Dominion Executive was responsible for the payment of Baulf’s wages and other matters. After his resignation he said he washed his hands of the whole campaign. Witness said he did not continue to make payments after March except for past commitments. To Air North, .Goodfellow said that in July, 1935, he had tried to have Davy removed from the Central Executive, but the meeting, he said, would not have passed any motion that ho wished.

Plaintiff, . said Air Brown, was rather like a dog at a football match, he did not know who was his master. The Magistrate; Well, no one seems to be whistling for him. Air Brown submitted that the plaintiff was engaged by Davy and Davy alone, and it was for the court to decide whether the engagement was on behalf of that nebulous body, the. Democrat Party. At a time when his client (J. B. Donald) was not a member of the party, counsel said, Baulf was employed by Davy. The Magistrate said that while plaintiff took his instructions from Davy that did not necessarily make Davy the principal. ~ Questioned by Air Brown; Donald said he did not enter into any personal arrangement with the plaintiff to pay his wages. He did not give his personal guarantee to pay moneys owing. He had brought t the matter up with Davy in Wellington, and Davy had replied that if the party “went” tho plaintiff would be paid, and if the party did not the plaintiff would not be paid. ' . . Air Dickson interposed that all this wa -1 new to his client (Banlf). The witness Donald said he had spoken to Airs Milne, because he understood from Banff's evidence that he did not hold him personally liable. He had never signed any application to join the party. “ Baulf said I received payment for furniture in the rooms in the British Chambers, and that I seized the furniture. I want to deny that, said witness. #The rooms were let without payment except tor 10s a week/for the lift. I hod certain furniture in the room, and said they could have it if they liked to pay me £oo. 1 have not been paid nor have I received the 10s a week. The rooms are the same at present as when they were left. I thought it was best in view of the trouble that the rooms should be left as they were, so I changed the lock. I have made several inquiries about the books from Baulf and penny, the treasurer, but they said they did not know where _ the.y were. I am not urging on this action. ... Witness detailed his financial transactions with Baulf. He said that Baulr came to him last December in a very perturbed state and said Davy had promised to send him £2l. As he needed tho money to pay his wages, witness gave him his own cheque lor £2l on the understanding that it was to be repaid immediately Davy s cheque arrived. “In April Baulf said he was going to _ lose Ins house and furniture,” said witness. I felt sorry for him, but said that any money I Jem him must he on a business footing, t paid all the debts he had outstanding. I said he might collect some money from the Democrat Party, and be gave me an irrevocable order for this money. Baulf said in evidence that I pleaded with him not to add me to the action. I want to deny that. He is not my “ You look more like his uncle,” said the Alagistratc. . . . “Later I asked him if >t was fauto sue me in view of all I bail done for him,” witness continued. I want to clear the suggestion that Baulf is bringing this action to try to force money out of various people. The case was adjourned.