CASE AGAINST MR ROWE FOR ELECTION EXPENSES.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 556, 30 March 1876, Page 3

CASE AGAINST MR ROWE FOR ELECTION EXPENSES.

The Auckland Herald case against Mr Rovve in the Resident Magistrate's Court Coromandel, in which Mr Rowe is sued by Mr Jas. Foley. The particulars of the plaintiff are:—"To three days engaged as electioneering agent for you at Coromandel as agreed, £6 ; two and a half days' board for seven of your voters, at 6s, £5 ss; money paid to messenger (Thomas Dunn), to warn your voters at the Tiki to come to Coromandel, £1 5s ; refreshments to seven of your voters and their friends for two and a half days, £6 ; total, £l7 10s." Mr Macdonald appeared for the defendant. Plaintiff deposed—l am an hotel-keeper at Coromandel. On the sth January Mr Rowe came to me and asked if I would support him, I told

him that I had not quite made up my mind, as I was going for Sir George Grey. Afterwards he said if I would support him he would nay for whatever I was out of pocket. He spoke of the electors at the Tiki. I said they were poor men and could not come in without they were paid their day's wages and their refreshment afterwards. As he was going away he told me not to be nice about it, but to do whatever 1 could for him. Crossexamined by Mr Macdonald—l may or may not have electioneering influence. The result of my bargain wit; t Mr Howe was that T was to do what I could and he would not be nice about the pay. I was to bring in the vomers from the Tiki, and feed them and drink them. That was my bargain. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Macdonald said he should not call any evidence, but should rely upon the plaintiff's own statement, and the Corrupt Practices at Election Act as a defence. While he did that, and there left the case for judgment, he should not be doing justice to Mr Howe in his public position unless he stated that Mr Bowo's sole employment of the plaintiff was contained in the written authority signed by Mr Eowe, which the plaintiff had put in evidence. In that writing there was nothing to infringe the statute, but plaintiff had not been content with that, but had tacked on other employment. The Court said Mr Foley's evidence put the case within the statute, and judgment must be for the defendant. Had it not been for Mr Macdonald's explanation, the judgmeut would have been without costs; as it was, he should give costs, £2 17s.