DEMOCRAT ORGANISER

Evening Star, Issue 22458, 1 October 1936, Page 15

DEMOCRAT ORGANISER

CLAIM FOR WAGES MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION [Per United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, September SO. Further evidence was Heard to-day in tlio ease in wliieli Harry Charles Banff is proceeding against officials ot tlio' former Democrat Early. Donald reiused to give his opinion regarding Uloodleliow’s responsibility, stating that Banff's employment was iu the hands of Davy. Replying to the magistrate, witness said ho first heard about the £3,000 odd being paid into Hislop’s account about the end of September, when it was first collected. Davy had expressed himself as being annoyed by it, and witness was also annoyed, as he considered that the Wellington executive was not keeping its bargain with him. Two cheques for £760 each paid into witness’s account came from tho £3,000, and were signed by Hislop. This was in repayment of the £1,500 ho had paid into the party funds temporarily. Witness did not hold himself responsible to pay Banff if the party did not have sufficient funds.

Cross-examined by Mr Butler (appearing for Davy) 'witness said that every candidate was promised £l5O. Witness did not get his share, but he hoped to be paid all that was owing to him. This closed the evidence.

On behalf of Hislop Mr Elliot said the only possible persons liable were either Davy, Goodfellow, or certain persons who were members of the Democrat organisation or executive. Hislop was definitely not included. Actually it was a point that he was neither a member of the executive nor of tlio organisation. There was a distinction between members of the organisation, which was a permanent party structure, and the candidates whose function was the enunciation of its policy. It was possible that a candidate might be a member of the organisation, but such a candidate had to bo elected to the executive. _ Had there been a Democrat Party in the House the leader would have become a member of the executive. The plaintiff had to show clear proof that Hislop was actually a “ member ” of the organisation, and no real evidence of that had been given. Hislop ivas hot a contracting party. Addressing the magistrate on behalf of the plaintiff, Sir Dickson said that Hislop could not deny being a member of tho Democrat organisation. Alternatively Hislop was a trustee controlling the trust funds of the ox - - ganisatiorx. Ho attended meetings, paid out funds for furthering tlio party’s objects, and identified himself with the organisation both publicly and from the point of view of inner finance. He had accepted all the fruits of membership, and had hoped to become Prime Minister of the Dominion had tiie party been returned to office Now that membership of the party was likely to be a liability it was to bo hoped that he would not be allowed to evade his responsibilities. Davy, counsel added, had made the original contract of eployment with the plaintiff, while Goodfellow was a party to it, and should share the responsibility for debts incurred. The latter was liable up to the time of his resignation.

“ One hesitates to say what one thinks of Donald,” said Mr Dickson. “ His conduct in the witness box was unsatisfactory, in that he refused to answer straight-out questions by a plain yes or no. Donald was chairman of the committee which contributed the funds in Auckland, and his liability could not bo denied. Plaintiff would not have joined the organisation if there had not been an express guarantee for payment, especially in view of his bitter experience with other political parties. Actually the Democrat organisation did not exist iu law, and it was an elementary point in law that the plaintiff could sue only through its officers. That was tho legal position.

'Mr Butler submitted that Davy o position in relation to Baulf was always substantially ’different from that of the others. From first to last Davy was only a paid servant, first of Good fellow, and secondly of the Democrat organisation when it was formed. He received a salary for his activities and was not interested in the policy the party had to propound. His relation to the party was very similar to that of liaulf, except that by virtue of his position he had a seat on the executive.

Tho magistrate thanked counsel for the legal research they had contributed to the case, and said he would maiko his decision known later.