ELECTION PETITIONS COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2454, 16 February 1882, Page 3

ELECTION PETITIONS COURT.

STANMOEB. Wednesday, Fbbbuaey 15. [Before their Honors Mr Justice Johnston and Mr Justice Williams.] The Court opened at 10 30 a.m. TO. PATTEN COWLIBHAW V WALTBB HIPPOLITE PILLIBT. Bor the petitioner, Mr Joynt, with him Mr Malet. For the respondent, Mr George Harper. Ee-examination of John Scott continuedThe letter to Mr Pilliet was as follows : Cashel Chambers, Christchurch, sth January, 1882. Dear Sir, —I beg to enclose you the election accounts as furnished to me, which I trust you will find correct. X refrained from furnishing them sooner, allowing the twenty-eight days to elapse, being the time limited by the Act for lodgment of a petition. According to the terms of our agreement I also enclose my account for services rendered as your election agent, which I am sure you will consider most reasonable, as I gave my whole time day and night, and Sundays included ; in fact, for the sixteen days previous to the election I neglected my own business absolutely, so that nothing would interfere with my efforts to secure your return —efforts lam glad to say have been so successful. A number of your supporters, wishing to testify their admiration of your conduct, have expressed their wish and intention of defraying the expeases necessarily incurred by you. But I thought it better to have your opinion previous to taking any stops towards carrying out this object. Hoping to hear from you at your earliest convenience, I remain yonra very truly, John W. Scott. To W. H. Pilliet, Esq., M.H.E., Ellangowan. Mr Pilliet replied as follows : Eiverhill, Christchurch, January 6th, 1882. Mr John Scott.

Dear Sir, —Tour letter with enclosures of yesterday’s data has just reached me. I confess I never saw so extraordinary a document before.

You were engaged at Mr Clephnne’s suggestion to assist his committee in clerical work connected with the election. The remuneration was not mentioned, and I presume it was to ba of a reasonable nature. Of the items in your account I know nothing, except that I see you_ are endeavoring to get money under wrong premises. And you an elector of Stanmore. too, and conversant, I believe, with the Electoral Laws. Several of the items in question I absolutely paid myself ! The whole matter, however, will be laid before my committees as soon as Mr Clephane returns to town. Of course yon should be paid so much per day as committee clerk, and for the rolls yon may have been instructed to procure, not a penny above that. The £9 I gave yon should, I have calculated, cover any claims you may feel disposed to make. Yours truly, Walter H. Pilliet. On the Tuesday following the receipt of the letter from Mr Pilliet I went to his house with Mr Hubbard. My visit was principally with reference to the letter. Mr Hubbard went into the next room to hove lunch. Mr Pilliet spoke about the petition, and stated that if all the allegations in the petition were denied by the persons named therein Mr Oowlishaw would withdraw the petition, and save expense and trouble. He asked me to write a letter to him, to show in town, stating that I had received nothing, nor expected payment. I said I could not do that in the face of the letter I had written to him. Ho said he was not particularly well off; that he was hard up. The letter was laid down, and he said, “ I know you are hard up," and I said, “Yes.” He said, “I’m not a bad follow if you taka me right.” He then gave me some money, and told me to put it in my pocket. I did not know then how much it was. I found afterwards that it was three single £1 notes. I never made any further application to Mr Pilliet for money. I did to Mr Hubbard and Mr Olephane. They told me as soon os they had got the money in from the Defence Fund, which had been started to defray the cost of opposing this petitiom they would pay me. They said they would calculate the payment at £2 2s per »'ay. I said I was satisfied with this or with anything in Mr Pilliet’s presence. Mr Hubbard said that I should bo paid. This was in Mr Pilliet’s house, and he did not deny that I should be paid. He said he could not personally pay me. I was present at the declaration of the poll for Stanmore. Mr Pilliet was also there. I had some conversation with him regarding the petition he had heard was to brought against his return. There was something said about Mr Toomer’s retiring, I told Mr Pilliet that I had heard in the town in the morning that he had given a cheque to Mr Toomer to pay his expenses for advertising, &s., during Mr Toomer’s candidature. He said he had not given a cheque or any money, but that the committee had found the money, and that Mr Olephane had given it to Mr Jamieson, another of the committee, who had handed it to Toomer, but that he (Mr Pilliet) had had nothing to do with it. He also said that they had taken good care it should not be found out. I gave Mr Buck an order on Mr Pilliet to receive the money due to me by him for services. I saw Jamieson on the day I received Mr Pilliet’s letter, I had a conversation with him on the subject of my claim. I said that Mr Pilliet had repudiated my claim, and I said I should sue him for it. Mr Jamieson told me that I should be paid, and that I was not to take any steps till after he had seen Mr Pilliet. About midnight on the Monday night following Jamieson came to my house and asked for the letter Mr Pdliet had written to me, I said I had not got it, but that if he would meet me next morning at half-past ten he should have it. At nine o’clock the next morning ho came in a cab to my house for the letter. I said, “If you come with mo I will give it to you.” He said I need not give up the letter with one hand till I received the money with the other. I went to my own office, and from thence to that of Mr Harry Feast, to ask him to go to Mr Goodman’s to get the letter, which I had given to Goodman. The latter said it was lost. Mr Hubbard came to me and asked me to write a letter saying I had received no money, and brought one drafted for me to copy. I copied it, saying I had received no money except for expenses. I signed it. It was 'complaining that I had not received any money, and that I had had to pay for tho printing of circulars, advertising and rent of hall out of my own pocket, and that I should know better next time. Mr Hubbard said a letter like that would stop a great deal of matters connected with the petition. I wrote a letter after Mr Pilliet gave me £3, to his dictation. [The letter stated that he had given his services gratuitously to Mr Pilliet’a cause, but he hoped to be reimbursed for the trouble he had been at and the loss of time sustained by him]. This was written in Mr Pilliet’s house, and by his dictation. We referred to the Act to see if he was equally liable under it for a promise as for actual payment. I declined to sign the letter in view of what I had already sent to Mr Pilliet. Mr Hubbard came in, and then there was a saving clause inserted to the effect that I expected some remuneration. When this was inserted I signed the letter. It was before I signed the letter that Mr Pilliet gave mo the £3. all the persons mentioned in the petition met at Mr Clephane’a house on the 11th. Mr Pilliet was there, and stated that the petition was brought through pure spite, and that Mr Oowlishaw, by bringing this petition, would put him to a lot of expense that he could not afford, and compel him to go through the Court; but if they would all sign a paper, which he road, denying all tho allegations in the petition, Mr Oowlishaw would see he was wrongly instructed and withdraw the petition. The document produced is the one that Mr Pilliet read. It was intended for publication in tho local journals, and was headed “ Mr Oowlishaw’s Mis-statements,” and signed by the members of the committee and electors whose names were mentioned in the petition. Mr Dixcy, before signing, said he had a few remarks to make. He said—“ I met three voters that day whom I treated. They wore personal friends of mine.” Dixey signed tho document after this. I first heard that this petition was lodged on January 9:h, I wrote to Mr Pilliet when I heard that tho petition was lodged, asking him to destroy all correspondence that had passed between them. The letter produced is the one. Mr Buck suggested to mo that it would be well to write tho letter. The letter asked that all correspondence, accounts, Ac., connected with the Stanmore election should be destroyed. Messrs Olephane and Ellis were active canvassers on Mr Pilliet’s behalf, and Mr Jamieson said he by Mr Harper—From first to last I received £l2 from Mr Pilliet, £9 being for expenses and the other £3 was given in payment of services. He said he was hard ; up and I was hard up, and he gave mo £3, , and told me to put in my pocket and say nothing about it. I am certain that he gave

me £3 in notes. There was no one there except Air Pilliet and myself. It was long before this that I rendered the accounts of my expenditure. I have remained in 8 * tß^ e of “ hard up" ever since. I asked Mr Hubbard and Mr Olephane for the money they promised me, but never got it from them. Mr Filliet said to me when ho engaged me that I would bo paid. I attended principally to Mr Pilliet’s business during this period. I was working for Mr Feast for a fortnight. We did not talk about the election except in a general way, I never received employment from Mr Goodman, of Messrs Thossas and Bruges. One day, when talking to Mr Goodman, I pulled the letter from Air Pilliet out of my pocket and gave it to Mr Goodman. Same one came in, and Goodman said, “Oome back in half an hour.” I went back, but the oiEce was closed, and afterwards Goodman told me ho could not find it. Mr Pilliet did not suggest that I should burn the correspondence. The letters thut have been put in were those passing between us. I paid the 15s for the buggy on the night of the election. I never took any voters in the The only man I took turned out not to be a voter. Mr Oowlishaw had plenty of cabs with voters. The members of the committee said—“Theregoes Oowlishaw’s cabs.” We saw Mr Oowlishaw’s personal friends in the cabs. The voter who got out of bed had a pint of beer at the Eastern Hotel, and I paid for it out of the money for expenses. I treated Mr Clark, one of Air Cowlishaw’s principal supporters. Mr Pilliol’s money paid for it. Mr Toomer would ask me to have a glass of beer, and then afterwards I would ask him to have one. It was an ordinary shout on my part. The letter drafted by Mr Hubbard was written in my house. I said I had no objection, as I had received no money except for expenses, On the occasion of writing the letter in Mr Pilliet’s house he said that he wanted a letter to show in town that I had received no money from him, and it would be better for me to say I had no expectation of receiving any. This was before I received the £3. When Mr Hubbard came in he suggested the addition that I expected some remuneration for my loss of time, &o. The committee-rooms used were the houses of Messrs Olephane and Hubbard. The tent was pitched near to Mr Oowlishaw’e, It was in the middle of the trees in the middle of the belt. I don't know whether this is in the Stanmore district or not. Mr Piiliot had no scrutineers at Bingsland and Knightstown. The only scrutineer he had was Medley. I signed the document headed “Mr Oowlishaw’* Mis-statements ” after seeing my name in the petition. I applied to Mr Hubbard for money because he told mo to oome up for it. I told Jimmy Goodman all that I have said to-day, and when I got the subpoena I went to Air Malot, and found that all my evidence was known. Mr Goodman was an active supporter of Mr Oowlishaw. I thought the whole matter of the petition was dropped, and that Mr Pilliet was secure of his seat. I never asked for payment of my services between the nomination and the poll. Mr Pilliet must have known that I was an elector of the Stanmore district because ho had the rolls, and Mr Pilliet also asked me it I was so when I first met him. We did not know that the Corrupt Practices Act prevented a clerk, if an elector, from being paid. We found it out the night I went to Mr Pilliet’s house. No one was paid but Medley and myself. Re-examined by Mr Joynt—Mr Olephane devoted a great deal of his time to the election.

John Jamieson—l was a member of Mr Pilliet’s committee and canvassed some for him. I know Mr Toomer. Until Mr Scott oame and offered his services as secretary I was acting in ; that capacity. Mr Toomer was a candidate for Stanmore, and withdrew about the 24th October. I was present at a meeting convened by Mr Pilliet at Phillipstown schoolroom when Mr Toomer announced his intention of withdrawing from the contest in favor of Mr Pilliet. The committee was formed after that, some names being put down that night, including those of Ellis, O'Farrell, Laurenson, Storier, Olephane, my own and others. Mr Filliet did not invite us to form ourselves into a committee. He was not in • position to know that night who were his committee, but he did afterwards. Mr Filliet worked his election through his committee.

Mr Harper admitted that the persons mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition were Mr Pilliet’s committee. Examination continued—About three weeks after Mr Toomer retired I paid him some money. Wo came to the conclusion amongst the committee that we would subscribe to pay bis expenses of the election as a candidate because he was a poor man. He had retired. Mr Joynt proposed to ask the witness whether it was on account of his retiring that the money was paid. Mr Harper objected. This question web the principal point in the case. The Court held that the question could not be asked.

' Examination continued—l paid Mr Toomer some £9 8j or £9 9s. I paid it out, of my own pocket, expecting to be repaid by the committee. I had money belonging to Mr Pilliet in my hands at the time. Mr Pilliet knew nothing about it. I have not been reimbursed one penny of the money since I paid it to Mr Toomer. I have paid Mr Pilliet £4 out of the £lO belonging to him. I have not yet had a settlement with the committee. I did not go into the Eastern Hotel with Mr Pilliet after the meeting at Phillipstown, when Mr Toomer retired. On the 24th October McCormick spoke to Mr Pilliet about paying Mr Toomor's expenses. I heard Mr Pilliet say, “ I could not pay a retiring candidate’s expenses. It is more than I dare do, under the Corrupt Practices Act.” I had cheques for money to pay expenses from Mr Pilliet. I returned one for cab hire. There was a standing order from Mr Pilliet to the keeper of the school at Phillipstown to allow us to meet there as his committee.

Cross-examined by Mr Harper—Mr Toomer got as far away as ho could from Mr Pilliet while he was speaking at the Phillipstown schoolroom on October 24th, Mr Pilliet was moving a vote of thanks to the chairman when Mr Toomer got up and said he had a few words to say. He then said, “Gentlemen, having heard Mr Pilliet at length, I feel that for mo to stand would be splitting the Liberal interest, and I therefore retire in his favor.” Previous to the 24th of October Mr Pilliet’s committee did not know that Mr Toomer was going to retire. We treated him as a hostile candidate. I was introduced to Mr Pilliet at his meeting at Eingsland, a day or two before October 24th. The question of paying Mr Toomor’s expenses came up at a committee meeting. I was in the chair. This was after October 24th. It was then agreed to pay Mr Toomer’s actual expenses, and the money was paid on November 14th or 15th. I directed a tent to be erected on the east belt as a committee room. It was erected next to Mr Oowlishaw’s tent. I afterwards got a room in a friend’s house, and the tent was not used. The house was at the corner of East belt and Gordon street. The use of it was not paid for. Mr Pilliet never attended any of our committee meetings. Soott told mo he had come to do his host for Mr Pilliet,

Mr Joynt objected to this lino of examina tion being pursued before Soott was re-called by Mr Harper for the purpose of calling his attention to the point the witness was now asked to disprove, Mr Harper would waive the point for the present.

Examination continued—Scott came to my house and asked me to get Pilliet to destroy correspondence and accounts he had given him, because ho was likely to get into trouble. Ho eaid this was about a letter Mr Pilliet had sent him. I asked to see the letter. He then said Mr Thomas, the lawyer, had it, and afterwards stated that he would givo it to me if I would come to his office. I went down to town with him, and he sent Mr Eeast for it. I remained waiting for a time, when Feast returned, and he told me that the letter was destroyed. I wanted to know why he asked Mr Pilliet to destroy all papers, and told him he ought to go and explain it to Mr Pilliet. He said he would, and I said I would go with him. Wo went to Mr Pilliet’s, and whilst wo were waiting Scott ran away. Ho said he was frightened. I could give Mr Pilliet no explanation. I have not spoken to Scott after the same evening, when he said it would be all right, as he had written to Mr PillietThe statement that I said he could have money with one hand whilst he gave up the letter with the other is untrue. Scott said I had better give him some money, or give it to his mother, when no one would know ; but I declined to have anything to do with it. A lengthened argument ensued as to Mr Harper’s right to examine the witness a* *-° the credibility of Scott with regard to the interview between Jamieson and himself. Ultimately Mr Joynt io-examined the witness.

Ee-examined by Mr Joynt—l signed the requisition to Mr Pilliet to oome forward as representative for Stanmore. I did nob then know Mr Pilliet personally. I was introduced to him on the night of tfce 21st, So far as I was aware it was not intimated to Mr Toomer that bis expenses would be paid before he retired. It was before Mr Toomer announced his intention of retiring that Mr McCormack asked Mr Pilliet to pay Toomer'a expenses, and he refused. Mr McCormack was the secretary of Toomer’a committee, and works with Toomer in the establishment of Toomer’a son. McCormack became a member of Mr Pilliet’a committee at the same time that Toomer did. I do not know whether the room in Gordon street was charged for. I should bo much surprised to find that an account for £1 had been sent in for the use of it. I was unaware at the time I went to Scott’s house at midnight of the existence of a letter from Mr Pilliet to Scott. Scott told me the purport of the letter. I understood that Mr Pilliet had written to Mr Scott, telling him that he was not entitled to be paid. I thought at one time it was of value to Mr Thomas, the lawyer, to found a case against Mr Pilliet on it. The Court, at this stage, adjourned. This Day. The hearing of this case was resumed. John Jamieson was re-examined by Mr Joynt—l saw Mr Scott on a Sunday. Mr Kerr was with me, and we had a general conversation on the subject of the election. I do not know whether it was Sunday, January Bth. I now remember that it was in December when I called on Mr Scott on a Sunday. I had knowledge of a letter sent by Mr Pilliet to Soott on January 6th. Scott made a communication to me on that evening as to the letter. He told me it contained a statement that Mr Pilliet refused to pay him anything for his services. When I went to Soott’a house at midnight I wanted to see the letter. My object in going towards Scott’s house on Tuesday morning was to get the letter. I wanted to get it from him to show it to Mr Pilliet, who had no copy. I called upon Mr Pilliet, who told me that he did not know what was in the letter, which might be damaging to his cause. This was on the Sunday, at Mr Pilliet’s house. On the Tuesday I went to town with Mr Soott, and waited for him at Feast’s office. Scott told me that Goodman thought the letter was destroyed. I asked him if he did not think that Goodman was shuffling him. I also said I believed the letter was being made use of. I accused Scott of having sold the letter to Mr Oowlishaw. I do not think Feast was there. I said in Mr Feast’s office, referring to the letter being made use of, “If Mr Oowlishaw has that letter in his possession, and Mr Pilliet has promised you payment, which I don’t think he has, then in my position I’ll have nothing more to do with it.” I added “ I think it is very hard, Mr Soott, you should prove anything against Mr Pilliet, as he is a J.P., and would lose his seat as such.” I may have used the words “In that case I will have no more to do with it. I have my position to keep, but I will not ory over spilt milk. If they have got the letter, I will prove that Pilliet paid an elector.” I don’t think I said those last words as to paying an elector, because I never believed Mr Pilliet did so, and it would not have been in my mind. I know Mr Fleming, who is Mr Scott’s landlord. I told him on the evening of the 10th January that he had better press Scott for the payment of his rent, as he was going to clear out, I said “ Yon had better get it, as Mr Filliet never intends to pay Scott.” Fleming said Soott bad told him he was engaged by Mr Pilliet. I told Mr Fleming that Mr Filliet had given Scott £9 for general expenses, and he had given Mr Pilliet bills.for amounts he said he had paid, but which the persons to whom the money was due had demanded from -Mr Filliet. I told Fleming that we would like to ; see Scott, if he would tell us where he lived, I did this, though I knew that Fleming was Scott’s landlord, and the house where he lived, I am on my oath, and desire to tell all that passed. Cross-examined by Mr Harper —Mr Fleming asked me a great number of questions because he was very excited at the thought of losing his rent. I had reason to believe that when I met Feast he was in the employ of Mr Oowlishaw, I had an interview with Mr Malet when he served me with a subpoena. I thought Mr Malet was the registrar of the Court, or I should never have sa : d what I did.

His Honor Mr Justice Johnston thought that Mr Harper was going into a great deal of new matter.

Mr Harper said the other side had thrown mud pretty freely, and he desired to do the same.

His Honor Mr Justice Johnston said this might be so, but Mr Harper must not intro* duoe a fresh supply of mud. Cross-examination continued—Mr Malet asked mo several questions. Mr Harper proceeded to ask the witness what he told Mr Malet.

Mr Joynt objected to this. The Court ruled that the question could not be asked. Cross-examination continued—l told Mr Malet that I should toll the truth iu the witness-box.

By the Court—l only saw Mr Scott acting on the committee at night, and thought that he was giving his time as I had done. William Clark Fleming—About the 9th January I saw Mr Jamieson, and bad a conversation with him, Jamieson first asked me if Soott had paid his rent. I expressed no anxiety about it to Jamieson, because I did not know that he knew Soott owed rent. I told Jamieson, in answer to his question, that Scott had not paid his rent. He said, “ I should advise you to take means to get it, as Mr Pilliet will not pay him.” I then aiked Jamieson whether Mr Pilliet had paid Scott any money, and he said yes, £9. I said he had given me none of the money, and Jamieson said that it was for expenses for advertising, and that Mr Soott had not paid for the advertisements, and that was what Hubbard and himself were going to see Soott about, as Mr Pilliet was in a great rage about the bills being sent in to him. Just as ho said this he turned to Mr Hubbard, and said “Hubbard, isn’t that right?" Hubbard replied “ Yes.” Subsequently Scott met Jamieson and Hubbard, and had a long and apparently angry conversation. I saw Mr Hubbard about an hour afterwards, and asked him if he had settled affairs with Mr Scott. I knew afterwards that they had gone about a letter. He said that he thought it would be all right. I afterwards had a long conversation with Mr Hubbard as to the payment or otherwise of Soott. I had written to Mr Scott telling him what Hubbard and Jamieson had said. Scott told me that Hubbard had said he should be paid, and showed me a bill for some £75, I think, which he said he was going to send Mr Pilliet. I believe it was £SO for services, and £25 for expenses. I went to see Mr Hubbard to ascertain whether Scott had told me the truth. Hubbard told me he had got Soott to write a letter to Mr Pilliet, stating that he was giving his services for nothing, in case it might come out in evidence against Mr Pilliet dn case a petition was lodged against his return. I then told him why I had come to see him, to see if what Scott had told me as to the payment was the truth. Ho said Scott would be paid. There was a subscription list out, to which he said ho would give £lO himself, and that when subscriptions came in he would pay Mr Soott. He said he had not the slightest doubt but that he would raise £4OO or £SOO for Mr Pilliet’s defence fund. He said that there were many of his Liberal friends who would come forward with their cheques for £lO, £ls, or £25 each. I said that I thought they would be very liberal if they did this. Mr Hubbard said Soott had worked seventeen and a half days very hard, and that he would got fair remuneration, bat not what he claimed. I said to him, “ Well, Mr Hubbard, I depend on you to get my rent.” Ha said, “ Scott will be paid if I have to pay him out of my own pocket.”

Cross-examined by Mr Harper—This was after the election. Mr Hubbard did not say that Scott had been paid or promised to be paid prior to the election. Bobert Scott is my tenant, but I look to John Soott for the rent. A distraint was put in by me for rent, and was paid out, Mr Goodman told me that he had paid Soott £2l. Mr Joynt objected to this line of examination unless the witness could give authoritatively his grounds for stating this. Mr Harper said he wished to test the credibility of Scott, and to prove that like Mr Feast he was a paid witness. Mr Joynt submitted that unless Mr Harper could contradict, by this witness, what Soott had said as to how he got the money, the evidence oonld not be got in. Soott had told them how ho got the money— £2l by a bill of

sale over his furniture, and £7 or £8 from his brother.

Mr Harper did not press the line of examination.

Frederick Guy corroborated the evidence of the former witness as to Mr Hubbard saying _ that Scott would be paid either by Mr Pilliet or himself. _W. B. Sharp—l was present at an interview between Mr Oowlishaw and Mr Toomer, senior, on the day after the Stanmore election. I took notes of what Mr Toomer said. lam prepared to state now what Mr Toomer said relative to the election. I should like to refresh my memory by referring to the notes I took at the time. I could then give what took place, as my notes are a nearly verbatim account of what took place. Referring to my notes I am able to say what took place. In answer to a question from Air Oowlishaw, why he (Mr Toomer) opposed him so strenuously, he said it was a matter of £s d, Toomer went on to say—“l gave Mr Garrick the hint when he called on me for my snpport that if ho kept the old man—that is Toomer himself—right, all would go straight.” He went on°to say that the men in his boot factory promised, if he oame forward, that they would collect the expenses for the election, but that they did not show any signs of doing so. Toomer went on to eay—“After Mr Pilliet’s meeting at Phillipstown I (Toomer) had a conversation with old Olephane, and I told him if I could clear the expenses I had been put to I would retire in favor of Pilliet and work for him. Old Olephane said it would be all right. McCormick, one of my men, told me that old Olephane promised; him I should not be out of pocket. I was then paid the money, John _ Jamieson, wk> said he was authorised by parties, about whom I knew nothing. The expenses only came to about £9 9s, and McCormick paid nearly all the accounts. I paid the “ Telegraph ” account, and was allowed about 17s discount, which I pocketed myself.” His conversation was rather disjointed, and he went on to say, “ I told old Ciephane that I would retire, as it was only a matter of £ s d.” He said to Mr Garrick, “I gave you the hint that I was unable to fight the battle, and the first opportunity I got to get my expenses I got out. Had Mr Oowlishaw done the same, I would have worked for him and ssnthim in.”

Cross-examined by Mr Harper—l took the conversation down in shorthand, Mr Toomer saw me taking it. We went to the White Hart into a private room—Messrs Oowlishaw, Edward Garrick, Toomer, and myself. I met the others in High street, and Mr Oowlishow asked me to go with him. We had some champagne. Only one bottle was brought in. We had some lemonade and port wine. Toomer had champagne, lemonade and port wine. This was when we went into the room. I don’t know what relation Mr E. Garrick is to Mr Toomer. I don’t know what became of Toomer afterwards. Mr Toomer stated voluntarily what I took down. He may have stated some of it in a jocular manner. He said to Mr Garrick about giving him the hint in a serious manner. When he referred to “keeping the old man going,”and when he spoke of “ old Olephane," it seemed to tickle his fancy. Mr Olephane is a very peculiar man indeed. Re-examined by Mr Joynt—Toomer was sober.

Henry William Toomer—l am a member of the firm of Toomer Bros. My father, Mr Henry Toomer, was a candidate for Stanmore in the recent election. I know Mr John Jamieson. I remember him coming to onr warehouse some time about the end of October. I cannot fix the date absolutely. Mr Jamieson asked me if he could see my father. I said, “Yes ; I suppose you have coma on this election business.” I knew Jamieson was on Mr Filliet's committee. He said, “ Yes.” 1 said that I had heard my father was going to resign, provided his expenses were paid. He said, “That’s what I have come hero to do. I have come to pay bis expenses.” I said, “I suppose they won’t come to more than a pound or two.” He said, “They will come nearer ten.” He pulled a parcel out of his pocket, which I understood to be money. I said, jokingly, " How does this some in for bribery and corruption ? Can Mr Pilliet afford this ?” He said, “ I don’t know where the money came from; it has come through twenty persons hands’ before it reached mine.” My father came down, and Jamieson handed him the parcel. Gross-examined by Mr Harper—l believe it was on the Wednesday after Mr Pilliet’a first meeting at Fhillipstown. I saw a notice in the paper on the Wednesday morning that my father had retired in favor of Mr Pilliet. It was shortly after this that Mr Jamieson came to see my father. I have seen some receipts for money which my father had paid away. The receipts are dated November 16th.

Mr Harper proceeded to ask the witness whether, having seen those receipts, he still thought it was in October that Jamieson came.

Mr Joynt objected, hut the Court ruled that the question was unobjectionable. Cross-examination continued—l still think it was in October when Jamieson came. It was about the time my father retired. Last night Messrs Oowlishaw and Malet came to see my father. I was present, and so was a younger brother. He talked about the Stanmore election, principally, I think, what would have happened had certain circumstances taken place. I told my father what I was going to say in Court, because I did not want to get him into trouble. I said I thought if my father had kept in the field Mr Oowlishaw would have got in. My father said that he thought Mr Pilliet held broad views, and was a more educated man, and therefore ho retired in his favor. Mr Oowlishaw said last night that he did not intend calling my father as a witness for him. I do not recollect Mr Oowlishaw telling my father to keep away. My father told them that he would tell the truth in the box, whatever they said. Ee-examined by Mr Joynt—My brother and myself asked Mr Oowlishaw not to call my father, as he is very excitable. He told Mr Oowlishaw last night that he had given him a hint, and had he taken it when it was given it would have been all right. I did not hear my father say that he did not care who he supported so long as his expenses were paid. I told Mr Oowlishaw that they had subpoenaed the wrong McCormick. I did not toll my father last night that ho was not telling the truth about his retirement. Albert Frederick Toomer—l remember having a conversation with my father relative to his retirement. This was before the Stanmore election, but not before he retired. I am positive it was on the Wednesday or Thursday in the week that my father retired. I said to my father that I had read in the paper that he had retired. He said that after hearing Mr Pilliet’s speech he thought he was a better man, and as he held the same views ho had retired. I said “ More fool you.” He said “ Never mind, I have done wall by it. Mr Pilliet will pay my expenses, and give me a pound to boot. I shall clear a note by it.”

Cross-examined by Mr Harper—Mr Oowlishaw and Mr Malet were at my father's house last night. I cannot say how long they remained. I told my father what I was going to say to-day in Court. lam an elector of Stanmore, and voted. I heard the conversation which took place last night. I could not say that there was anything said about Toomer, senior, not being called as a witness. Ido not remember anything being said about Jamieson having given such evidence yesterday as put him in a hole, nor my father being told to keep away or ho would bo in the same mesa as Jamieson.

William Alfred Lowe—l wont on the 9th February with Mr Soott to Mr Hubbard’s house. I received a letter from Mr Hubbard to take to Mr Pilliet. I did so. I gave the letter to Mr Pilliet, and ho asked me who it was from. I said it was from Mr Hubbard, and asked him whether there was any answer. He asked me who I was, whether I was a friend of Mr Scott or not. I said I was. He asked mo if I had taken any interest in the election, or with regard to the petition. I replied I had not. Ho said, “ I am very sorry I can do nothing with regard to the contents of this letter.” He said I could read the letter it I liked, but I declined. He said, " The eloo ion hag cost mo a great deal of money. I have already spent £6OO. I know I have not got a leg to stand upon. I have mortgaged my house, and I paid yesterday morning £250 to Mr George Harper. As regards this petition I have not got a shilling to pay the costs, and have settled up my affairs with my solicitors preparatory to my going to gaol for six months. Tell Mr Scott I am very sorry, but he knows himself that I cannot pay him anything aa regards that letter be sent mo about the expenses and services rendered ; he ought to know himself that I could not pay him anything, as it would be bribery, besides some of those accounts which he has sent in have already been paid by me, and I am

going to night to Mr Olephane’a to see about this.” He also said Mr Hubbard should have known better than write Buoh a letter.

Cross-examined by Mr Harper—l am a friend of Mr Scott, and live with him. lam a clerk, and have been out of employment some two months. What I have told the Court is perfectly true. It was not a “ plant ” my going to Mr Piliiet. Mr Piliiet was not excited. I have not been paid anything for giving evidence.

Herbert L. Stedman—l am manager for Mr F. W. Delamain at the Sink stables. I remember a buggy being hired on December 9 h by Mr Scott. I find an entry in our books of a buggy being taken out by Soott. He returned with the buggy in the evening. Soott paid 15s for the use of the buggy when he came in with it.

Cross-examined by Mr Harper—l took the money myself from Soott. lam sure of this. There was some other person with him. George Gerard—l am an elector of Stanmore, and voted at the last election. I went to the poll in a cab. The cab came for me ia High street, where I was at work. A man named Haokworth, a neighbour of mine was in the cab. We went to the “ Times” office, and for another voter wa stopped at the Albion Hotel, and Hacksworth asked us to have a drink, which we did. Ido not know whether Hack worth paid for the drinks. Mr Harper propo.-ed to ask the witness how ho voted, but the Court ruled that it could not be put. Cross-examined by Mr Harper—l did not know that Haokworth was a member of Mr Pilliet’s committee. I was not influenced in my vote by the glass of beer I had given me.

Henry Winchester deposed to having gone in a cab to vote at the Stanmore election. Hackworth and Gerard wore in the cab. The former was, he believed, working for Mr Piliiet during the election. Hackworth asked witness and Gerard to have a glass of beer, for which he paid. By the Court—l did not pay for the oah, nor was I asked to pay for it. Cross-examined by Mr Harper—l was not asked to vote for Mr Piliiet,

Mr Joynt announced that, out of consideration for the feelings of Mr Alfred Thompson, they would not offer evidence on that part of the petition referring to him. This closed the petitioner’s case.

Mr Joynt said, before the evidence was gone into for the other side, he would like 1o ask that Mr Malet and Mr Cowlishaw might be allowed to make a statement at to why they went down to Mr Toomer’s house on the previous evening. He might say that a report was current in the city that they had gone down there to “ square ” old Toomer, and it was perhaps just si well that an explanation should be made. His Honor Mr Justice Johnston said, so far as the Court was concerned, they did not think for one moment that anything could be said as to the visit of Messrs Malet and Cowlishaw to Mr Toomer. It was nob because the Court desired any explanation, but because perhaps censorious people might quite unnecessarily talk about it that the Court would accede to the request of Mr Joynt that Mr Malet should explain the reason which had led Mr Cowlishaw and himself to visit Mr Toomer. Frederick Da Carteret Malet—l am solicitor in this case, and also counsel for the petitioner. Last night Mr Cowlishaw and myself, after the rising of the Court, was walking away together ; a person Whom I did not then know came up. He addressed Mr Cowlishaw and said, " When are you going to call me ; I have h?en waiting here all day.” I said to Mr Cowlishaw, “ Who is this genman ?” Mr Cowlishaw said, “Mr Henry Toomer.” The person said, “I wish you would not call the old man or my father; the other side are not going to do so.” He then went into the reasons why his father should not be called, because be was old or peoulior. He then said, “ McCormick can prove just what my father could.” Mr Cowlishaw said, “We have subpceaed McCormick. ” Mr Henry Toomer said that we had subpocaed the wrong man. We went down to Phillipstown to serve the subpoena, and on our way called at Mr Henry Toomer’s house to inquire where McCormick lived, but he was not at home. We then went to Mr H. Toomer, senior’s, house to inquire where he lived. Mr Toomer, senior, was there, and told u» that McCormick was at the Eastern Hotel, attending at a meeting of the Oddfellows. Mr Toomer, senior, asked us to go in, which wa did, and subsequently the two young Mr Toomors came in, and a conversation ensued between them. On no occasion did we suggest to Mr Toomer in the slightest that he should not appear here to day. The only reason we went to old Mr Toomer’* was that we desired to inquire where one John McCormick lived. We remained some quarter of an hour or twenty minutes. Mr Harper did not cross-examine, and then proceeded to open the case for the respondent. The petition, he took it, was considerably reduced. The main point they had to mtet was as to the alleged inducement of Henry Toomer to retire. He should have a good deal to say on the law of the question as to whether the Act contemplated such an offence as inducement to retire. With regard to the charge that refreshments, &c., had been supplied to certain voters, the other side had led no evidence. Then came the allegation as to the employment of John Scott, for rebutting which he intended to call a quantity of evidence. There had been no evidence led by the other side as to the employment of Mr Charles Martin, Then with regard to the paragraph charging as an offence the not furnishing of lists of scrutineers, it was not one voiding the election, but was merely an irregularity punishable by a fine of £SO. The allegation with respect to Mr Thompson was withdrawn, and this was therefore an unfounded charge. The same remarks applied to the portion of the petition having reference to the closing of the poll before the proper time. He should now proceed to call evidence.

Henry Toomer, senior—l was a candidate for Stanmore in the recent election. Mr Flesher and Mr Cowlishaw were candidates also I came forward in the Liberal interest. Mr Pilliet came out as a candidate about a fortnight after I did. I had no recognised committee. McCormick undertook to be my secretary, if I may use the expression. I remember Mr Pilliet holding a meeting at Phillipstown. I had not heard him speak before then. I think the meeting was held on a Tuesday or Wednesday. I had no communication with Mr Pilliet or any one on his behalf before that meeting. I had no communication with Messrs Jamieson, Hubbard, 8. Freeman, Olephane, or Hawkins before I went to the Phillipstown meeting. It was not suggested to mo before I went to that meeting that I should retire. It originated with myself. I thought that, being a poor man, I should not be able to fight the battle. At the meeting at Phillipstown I heard Mr Pilliet speak. At the close of the meeting I got up to speak, hut they beat me down. I then went up to the table and told the meeting that I should retire in favor of Mr Pilliet, os I thought he was a better man than I was to represent them. I did not make it a condition with any person mentioned in the petition that I should receive my expenses before retiring. After Mr Pilliet's address I asked McCormick whether he did not think it hotter for me to retire. Some three weeks after the meeting I was paid my expenses by John Jamieson. It was paid me in notes. On the 15th November, the same day that 1 received the money, I went to the “ Times ” office and the “Telegraph ” office, and paid my advertising accounts. I was promised my expenses by the employes in the factory. That was the condition I put up on. I attended the committee meetings of Mr Pilliet and also voted for him, in complianco with what I said at the public meeting. The day after the election I saw Mr Edward Garrick and Mr Cowlishaw opposite the Ci'y Hotel. Mr Edward Garrick aeked mo for my vote for Mr Cowlishaw, but I declined. Mr Cowlishaw came up to me and said I was a jolly old sort, and asked me to have a drink. He said he blamed me for losing the election, and next time ho should harness me in to work for him. As a natural consequence, he said “ come in and have a drink.” I had my old sort, port wine and lemonade. Mr Cowlishaw hadjwhiskey,! think. The bar was full, and Mr Cowlishaw was very liberal, shouting for all hands round. Mr Feast also oamn in. Mr Cowlishaw, after we came out, wanted more of my company, and said, “ Como on, old man, and have another drink.” We went to the White Hart. Mr Cowlishaw asked Mr Shephard for a private room. We went into the private room, Mr Edward Garrick, Mr Cowlishaw, and a bald-headed gentleman, whom we turned up on the road, named Sharp, and myself. We had a bottle of “ fizz.” I had a glass, but a large bottle is not much amongst four. Mr Cowlishaw asked me to have another drink. Mr Garrick said, “Oh, have something stronger, old man.” 1 had my doubts, and said I would have

i my old favorite, port wine and lemonade. Wa ! talked politics. I noticed Mr Sharp was taking down notes, and I became more evasivemmy answers. Mr Oowlishaw asked me mjr reasons for retiring, and asked why I had not written to him. I said that, as a gentleman, he ought to have written to me. He asked me how much my expenses were. I said , £10; and he then asked me who paid my expenses. I said Jamieson brought the money. This was the only straight answer I gave them, because I felt that there wa* a sort of trap set for me, and it ia my motto to give ns good as they brought. I might hays said to Mr Garrick, “ Sou keep me in the field and Mr Oowlishaw will go in.” That was the electioneering tip. I did not have any conversation with CDphane about retiring in favor of Mr Piliiet if I got my expenses. I don’t t! i.k that I told them in the While Hart that this was s If I did it was false. If I told Mr Oowlishaw that I had told McCtrmick so, it was merely an evasive answer to beat them off their guard. I thought that these people were pumping me. I then went away with Mr .Edward Garrick to have a cup of ta. Mr Garrick was very liberal to me, and shouted for me to go to the theatre. I swear most positively that I was not induced to retire by promise from Mr Pilliet’s committee to have my expenses paid. My sons were not on the same political platform as myself. They were opposed to mo. Ido not know that they have any politics. I daresay it is true that one of my sons called me an old fool for retiring. Mr Oowlishaw and Mr Malet came to sea me lust night, and we had a bit of sociable chat. I said that I voted for measures, not men. Mr Oowlishaw seemed to desire to be a friend to me, and not put me in the witness box. I thanked him because I didn't want to come here. He said he thought I had bettor stop at home. This was after a good deal of sociable talk and cracking a few j ikes. I told them that I should come into Oourt and tell the truth, because I was in favor of no one. I wrote to the piper repudiating the charges made against me in the petition. The letter now produced repudiating that I received any money from you to retire was published in the newspaper. I know John Scott, who was employed during the election. He talked a great deal, and pretended to figure down a lot of names. He fonnd fault with, what had been done by the committee before. So far as I am aware, Scott was not working in the day. We used to meet once a week, and eat till ten or eleven o’clock at night. | Left sitting.]