ELECTION PETITIONS COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2455, 17 February 1882, Page 3

ELECTION PETITIONS COURT.

STANMOBE. Thxtbsday, Fbbbttaby 16, [Before their Honors Mr Justice Johnston and Mr Justice Williams.] WM. PATTEN COWIIBHAW T •WAIiTBB HIPPOLITB PILLIKT.

The heating of this case was resumed. For the petitioner, Mr Joynt, with him Mr Malet. For the respondent, Mr George Harper. The following evidence was taken after our going to press yeßterday :—Henry Toomer, ten., oross-examined by Mr Joynt—l wrote the letter myself, but had it revised grammatically by Mr Jamieson. Mr Pilliet had no hand in it. Mr Jamieson took the letter away and brought it baok for me to copy it. Mr Jamieson was acting then aa secretary to Mr Pilliet'a oommittee. Before the meeting at Phillipstown, when I retired, I had a conversation with Mr McOormick as to my retirement. I spoke to McOormick about my expenses. I said, "John, how about my expenses?" He eaid, "I'll speak to Mr Pilliet about it," and he told me that Mr Pilliet should say he could have nothing to do with my expenses, as it was contrary to the Act called tho Corrupt Practices Act. I had no conversation with anyone eise before the election as to my retirement. I had no conversation with Mr Edward Garrick before the spree ho had in the White Hart, exoept when he came to solicit my vote. I did not toll Mr Garriok that if Mr Cowlisbaw would keep me going it would be all right. I might have said to Mr Cowlishaw that if he had taken the hint I had given him, and kept me in the field, he would go in. I don't know what I should have done had I had £IO,OOO a year instead of being as I was. • This is a lot of money. I told Mr Edward Garrick two or three days after I retired that if Mr Oowlishaw had kept me in the field—my very words were —" Now, Ted, I will give you an electioneering tip. If Mr Oowlishaw would keep me in the field he would get in." I said to Mr Oowlishaw last night that he should have taken the hint I gave Mr Garrick. Mr Oowlishaw said, "It was too late then." I said, "Oh no; I could have gone in again; besides, my expenses were not paid." It was very simple for Mr Oowlishaw to have kept me in the field by sooiability. I had Mr Garriok, with my two sons, working againit me, whereas if they had said, " Here, old man, come and work with us," I would have gone to them. There was a possibility if Mr Oowlishaw had been sooiable of my going over to Mr Oowlishaw. My principles were sociability in my family circle. If thia had been procured through the influence of Mr Oowlishaw, I might have gone into the field again against Mr Pilliet. John McOormick—l know the last witness. I aoted aa seoretary for him during hia candidature for Stanmore. I spoko to Mr Pilliet at Phillipstown on the evening of his first address there. This was the first time I had seen him. I asked Mr Pilliet if he would be favorable to paying Mr Toomer's expenses if he resigned. He absolutely refused, saying, "Don't you ste that the Corrupt Practices Act, which has just been passed, precludes me from giving such a promise." I told Mr Toomer what Mr Pilliet said, and he was not satisfied with the answer, and he sent me to Mr Olephane. This was before the meeting oommenced. Mr Olephane referred me to Mr Pilliett again, but he had oommenced hia address, and I did not interrupt him. I do not remember speaking to Mr Pilliet afterwards on the subjeot. I became subsequently a member of Mr Pilliet's committee. I did not know that Scott had any specified duties to perform in connection with Mr Pilliet's committee.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—Mr Toomer before the meeting said he had expended a oertain sum of money on advertisements, and would like to see it refunded if he retired. He never told me his reasons for retiring. I urged upon Mr Toomer to retire, because I believed Mr Pilliet to be a better man. Toomer never once intimated to me that he could not carry on the fight. I was a member of Mr Pilliet's committee when it was decided to try and get up Mr Toomer's expenses. It might have been a week after Mr Toomer's retirement when this proposal was made. I made the proposition, and it was unanimously agreed that we should do our best to repay the expenses. It would be impossible for mo to say who found the money to defray Mr Toomer's expenses. Mr Pilliet was never at any of the committee meetings. Robert Olephsne—l remember the late Stanmore election, and recolleot Mr Pilliet and Mr Toomer being candidates for the seat. I took a little interest in the eleotion. I supported Mr Pilliet when he came forward. I was not a member of Mr Toomer's oommittee, but I was of Mr Pilliet's. Mr Pilliet addressed the electors first at Bingsland and afterwards at Phillipßtown. I asked Mr Toomer to retire prior to the Phillipstown mooting. I reminded him of what he had said at a meeting, that if a better man came forward in the same interest he would resign. I was then getting up the requisition to Mr Pilliet. Nothing was said either by Mr Toomer or myself as to the expenses being paid. Mr MoOormick told me, before Mr Pilliet's speeoh at Phillipstown, that Mr Toomer was going to retire. I said I was glad to hear it. He said—" We must try and pay the old man's expenses." I said that whatever might be done by ourselves, Mr Pilliet oould have nothing to do with it. At the end of the meeting Mr Toomer announced his intention of retiring in favor of Mr Pilliet. I saw John Soott often—frequently during the eleotion. Scott was at most of the meetings of the committee. Scott came to my house to oommence the clerioal business of the eleotion. Mr Jamieson had before thiß done what was to be done, but he oould not give enough time to it. I certainly did not pay Scott. 1 am a Sootohman, and would not do this. I did not know Soott was an elector. I had no idea that Scott was to be paid for what he did. If he was working for his bread.he should be paid. Ido not remember seeing Mr Pilliet at the oommittee meetings. We all signed the disclaimer headed "Mr Cowlishaw's misstatements" with great pleasure. The statement in the third paragraph of the petition, that Mr Toomer was promised a aum of money to retire is utterly false. I was not supplied with any refreshments by Mr Pilliet or his oommittee on the day_ of election. I had formed a very good opinion of Soott up to the preseat time, so mnoh so that had I seen my way dear to getting the money baok again I would have advanced him money to get the bailiffs out of his house. I saw him on Friday last, when he was endeavoring to raise money to get the bailiffs out of bis house.

Mr Harper proposed to ask the witness whether Scott spoke to him about the petition, and the evidenoe he was going to give. Mr Joynt objected on the ground of irrelevancy. He submitted his learned friend should have asked Scott whilst in the witness box whether he had spoken to the witness as to the evidenoe he was going to give. His Honor Mr Justice Williams said if anything came out tending to impugn Scott's evidence, it would be quite open to Mr Joynt to re-examine Soott to rebut the testimony now given by the witness. Their Honors ruled that the answer could be Riven. Examination continued—Soott told me that if he could not find money to get the bailiff out of his house, he would throw over the case altogether. I did not know what opinion to form on the subjeot. There it is, you can form what opinion you like on it. I express no opinion on the point. I walked away almost immediately. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt —Mr Pilliet's committee was formed immediately after the meeting at Phillipstown. I had very little communication with Mr Pilliet after I joined the committee. Our communications were not frequent ; they were very seldom indeed. I did not understand that the person who was to act as a secretary to the committee was to be paid. I intended that Mr Pilliet should get a man to uot as secretary if he could for nothing. I did not think anything about the person being an elector or not. Borne time after Mr Toomor'e retirement the matter of paying expenses was suggested by Mr McI Cormiok at Mr Pilliet's committee. At that time nothing definite was arrived at. McCormiok was the proposer. I do not know how Mr Toomer's expenses were paid. I did not know they wore paid until I heard it whilst this petition was being heard. I told Mr Jameson that I would contribute towards it, but I have not paid anything. I mean to say that the money did not come into my hands in the coarse of the ordinary committee business, nor was it handed by me to Jameson. John Jameson —I was not provided with meat drink, or entertainment by Mr Pilliet on the day of elootion. I did not see any other of the committee have any meat or drink.

Cross examined by Mr Joynt—l undertake to swear most positively that neither bread and obeese nor beer wore brought into the committee-room on the Bast Belt. The money I took to Mr Toomer was my own. The committee have not reimbursed me for this payment yet. I think, however, they will do so eventually.

William Frederick Hubbard —I am an

eleotor of Stanmore, and a member of Mr Pilliet's committee. I was a pretty constant attendant at the oommittee meetings held in my own house. I had no communication whatever with Scott, nor did I know what ho was engaged for in oonneotion with the election. He divided the electors names into books for the use of canvassers. I have seen Scott since the eleotion. I saw him at Mr Pilliet's home. He went there at my instigation, as 1 told him of a rumor prevalent in town that he had received monoy for his

services. Soott said he was very sorry that he had said he had received money for his services. I oalled on Mr Pilliet and told him what had passed between us, and suggested that I should call on Scott. I was not then shown an account for services rendered, but I heard that Scott had sent in an aocount for an enormous amount I went to Scott's house and said it was a pity they should be at daggers drawn like this, and it would be better for him to write to Mr Pilliet stating what he had received the money for, and how it had been expended. He said he was willinz to do anything I wishod, and wrote tho letter produced. I had no knowledge of how tho £9 had gone, whethor Scott had taken the monoy himself or used it for expenses. There was nothing said about a petition against Mr Pilliet's return at this time. The only reason why I wanted Soott to write the letter was to bring about a friendly feeling between Mr Pilliet and Mr Scott. There was a good deal of conversation about the rumor whioh hnd got abroad about Soott receiving monoy, and Scott expressed contrition for spreading the rumor. He said that he was hard-up, and wanted money, and that was why he circulated the rumor. Mr Pilliet said that he had no money to give him. Scott then said he would do anything to show Mr Pilliet how sorry he was for having cironlated a rumor likely to do him harm. He then sat down and drafted the letter produced. I did not see Mr Pilliet give Soott any money. Soott did not offer any objection to write tho letter. The draft of it was completed before I left the room. lam sure that Mr Pilliet did not give Soott £3 in single notes before he commenced to write the fair copy. The letter was fair copied and signed when I returned to the room. Scott told me during this last week that Pilliet gave him £3. He showed me a little note-book with an entry of reoeipt of £3 irom Mr Pilliet, saying that I was the only man who had seen it. Mr Pilliet never told me he had given Scott £3. I was not absent from the room more than seven or eight minutes. I have never seen Scott's election accounts rendered accounting for the payment away of £9. Scott has been dunning me for money on several ocoasions. I lent him £2 to release him from the hands of the bailiffs recently. I never said I would give £lO towards a fund for paying him his money. I said if I could afford it I would give him something, as he worked very hard whilst connected with the oommittee. One evening in last week Soott met me in Cathedral square and told me that the bailiffs were in his house.

Mr Joynt objeoted to this line of examinaion being pursued. Mr Harper did not press the question.

Examination continued Scott has threatened on several occasions to tell all he knew in the matter to the other side. On one occasion he was so direct in his threats that I ordered him out of my house. Gross-examined by Mr Joynt—The words "I must say I expeatai some substantial recognition for my services and loss of time in connection with the matter" were not inserted at my rr quest. I think Soott ought to be paid something, and I was unaware that the law prevented him from being so. Ido not know what is the meaning of the posteoript. " I hope you will show this to Mr Clephane." I knew Mr Pilliet had written a letter to Soott. The letter of Soott to Mr Pilliet, stating that he had received no money, was my own suggestion, so as to reconcile Mr Pilliet and Mr Scott. I thought it was a pity to see (Mr Pilliet and Mr Soott bad friends, particularly es Scott had worked hard for us. There was nothing mentioned about the petition which had been lodged against Mr Pilliet. I oannot swear whether I hoard of the petition boing lodged before the letter was written. The letter of the 9th January was written in Scott's house. It was submitted to me as it was written. All I wanted was for him to state how the £9 he had received was expended. Both the letters were written on the same evening. We went from Scott's house to Mr Pilliet's. My objeot was to aot as a kind of mediator between the two, and to allay the excitement of Mr Pilliet, and to pacify him. There was no mention of money. Mr Pilliet'* oopy of the Corrupt Practioes Aot was at my house. It was given to me by Mr Pilliet, and marked " committee room." Mr Pilliet asked Soott to write the letter referred to, so as to refute the statements which he had heard. The draft of tho letter was revised by Mr Pilliet and myself. Scott has played upon my feelings because I expressed sympathy with him. That is what I mean by his dunning me. He has asked me on several occasions to give him money. Be-exatnined by Mr Harper—The letters were written for the express purpose of showing that the money was expended for expenses. Election expenses are allowed under the Act, suoh as advertising, &c. The Court adjourned at 5 30 p.m. to 10.30 a.m. to-day. Thib Day. The hearing of this case was resumed at 10 a.m. Harry Feast, examined by Mr Harper—l keep a privute enquiry office. I know John H. Soott. He was engaged by me for a fortnight and a day. I paid him when he left by oheque. He was employed altering circulars and writing letters. Scott left me on January 4th. Scott wrote the letter produced. [A letter covering the accounts rendered to Mr Pilliet was put in.] He wrote it in my offioe and copied it into my book. He made out his accounts there, and I believe he used my paper for the purpose. He told me several days before that he would write the letter if he were not paid. The letter asking Mr Pilliet to destroy all correspondence was written by Soott in my office. It was die tated by Mr Buok. Mr Cowlishaw first spoke to me about this petition on the 12th December. I was principally employed by him from that date. I had the matter in hand. When Scott wrote and sent these letters I was working up tho case. One Saturday—l think the day he left—Scott showed me a letter from Mr Pilliet, about which he seemed to be very excited and in a great rage. The letter produced ia the one. [Letter from Mr Pilliet repudiating any liability to Soott put in.] I did not suggest to Scott that he should claim these expenses or write' for them. He told mo all the particulars before he had been in my offioe three hours, and told me he should sue Mr Pilliet. I think Scott was with me a week after tho 6th January. I never had the letter written from Pilliet to Scott, nor did I see it again till to-day. I know Mr Goodman in the office of Messrs Thomas and Bruges. Ido not know thßt he was working for Mr Cowlishaw. He waii n my office on several oooasions on various matters of business. I do not think (hat Goodman and Scott were ever in my offioe writing together. Scott had drafted the letter to Mr Pilliet, and when I came in he read it to me. He did not know that I had been employed by Mr Cowlishaw to work up the case.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l paid Scott what I engaged him at. The letter to Mr Pilliet asking him to destroy all correspondence was dictated to Scott by Mr Buck. The latter was an intimate friend of Soott. He is a sort of electioneering agent. I have known him as prominent in ek-clionß for some years. I do not know whether he was working !ot Mr Pilliet. He took great iutertßt in Mr Pilliet. On this occasion he came rushing upstairs saying that a petition was out. He told Soott to write to Mr Pilliet to destroy all letters and papers with reference to money matters between them. I made notes at the time of the conversation taking place between Buck and Soott in my office, and should like to refresh my memory by looking at them.

Mr Harper said he did not think the conversation wes relovant.

Mr Joynt said his learned friend had introdnced Buck, and had pot out from the witness that the letter asking Pilliet to destroy correspondence was dictated by Buck. His Honor Mr Justice Williams thought that Mr Joynt was entitled to show that the letter was dictated by Buck and not by Feast. If Mr Buck was proved to be connected with

Mr Pilliet so muoh the worse for the latter ; if, on the other hand, there was no connection proved it would not. After some further argument Mr Joynt was allowed to get out the details of the conversation, but did not avail himself of the permission.

Cross-examination continued—l romembor

meeting Sootfc in the right of way leading from the Poet Oflbe to Hereford street on the 10th January. He asked me to go over to Goodman to get the letter Soott had received from Filiiot. He told me that Jamieson was waiting for me, and if he got tho letter that he would get his money. I went first to my office and saw Jamieson there Ho asked me if I had got that. I looked at him and asked him what he meant. He then said, " Oh, the letter ; haven't you got the letter Scott received -lrom Pilliet." I told him no ; that Scott had asked mo to go a messugo for him. and I would go after I put my table straight. We don't keep many papers rslative to private inquiries. Jamieson asked me to allow him to wait there while I went over to Goodman. I saw Soott bs I was returning from Goodman's, and told him I oould not got the letter. He said, "My God, I'm lost." I told Jamieson I could not get the letter. Soott came into my office with mo. Jamioson asked Soott if

he did r.ot think Goodman was shuffling about tho letter. I said I did not think so. I took a note of their conversation, part of it while they were talking, and the rest so soon as I could get their backs turned. Mr Joynt applied that the witness might refresh his memory by referring to his notes.

Cross-examination continued Jamieson told me that Scott told him I had the lot'er. Scott said to Jamieson that he had left the letter with Goodman on the Saturday, and he thougVit it must be in the waste-paper basket in Messrs Thomas and Bruges' office. Jamieson said ho believed that Goodman was shuffling, and the letter was boing used by Mr Cowlishaw. Jamieson said, "If that's the case I am going to have nothing more to do with it, as I have my position to keep. I don't believe in crying over spilt milk. If they have got tho letter I shall have nothing more to do with you or it." He was speaking to Scott. He said, "If they have got the letter it will show that Pilliet had paid an elector, and he would lose his J. P. ship."

Some argument here ensued as to the effect of the Act in respect to the deprivation of a candidate found guilty of an " illegal practioo" of any judicial appointment he might hold. Their Honors and the counsel on both sides having spoken in tho matter, tho examination proceeded. Cross examination resumed—Jamieson said Pilliet would be fined £IOO and lose his seat. He said he should now stand clear, as he had himself to look to. Soott told Jamieson that the letter was destroyd, and Jamieson advised Pcott to go to Pilliet and explain matters. Scott demurred, as he said Pilliet would damn and go on so. Jamieson said, "If he does, I thall throw the whole affair up and look to myself." They then asked me if I would go to Pilliet and explain that the letter was lost. I declined to do this. I told them that the matter did not interest me, and they might fight it out between them. Jamieson said Soott was a fool to send the letter to Pilliet, as if he had not done so he would have got his money. If Scott could give the lettor to Pilliet he had received from him he would get his money ; if he could not do so, he would not get it. They then left together, Scott came back at 11 30 a.m. He said that he had not seen Pilliet, but had seen Olephane. Ho said he had told Clephane he would not do Pilliet any harm. Jamieson came to my office in the afternoon.

He-examined by Mr Harper—Soott told me on 31st December that he had reoeived £3 from Pilliet besides the £9 for expenses

—£l2. Cross examined by Mr Joynt—Scott told me that he reoeived £3 from Pilliet when he came to engage him. lam not clear that he told me as to the last £3.

James Goodman, examined by Mr Harper —I have seen the letter produced dated January 6th before. Mr Scott showed it to me on a Saturday. It was in my room in the office. lam not certain that I have seen the letter since. I have seen a copy of it, but I am not clear that I have seen the original. Mr Malet had the oopy. Scott read the letter to me, and he left it with me. I did not give it baok to Scott. I showed it to Mr Cowlishaw, who said ho would mind it. Scott came for the lettor on the Monday following. He did not get it, because Mr Cowlishaw had it. Soott hunted about a gwat deal. I did not hunt much. Scott found a burnt envelope. Mr Harper said he did not think that this was very creditable. There should be an addition to the Corrupt Practices Aot to meet suoh things as this. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—My principals were not cognisant of this at all. I acted entirely on my own responsibility, as assisting Mr Cowlishaw. Messrs Thomas and Bruges knew nothing of the matter. Walter Hippolite Pilliet—l am the respondent in this case. I oame forward for Stanmore before Mr Cowlishaw. The committees working for me were self elected for the three portions into whioh the district was divided. They were appointed after my meeting and in my absence. I was asked to attend committee meetings, but deolined. I addressed the electors at Phillipstown. On the first occasion two or three persons came to speak to me. I was walking up and down collecting my thoughts for my speech, when a person I did not know came up to me and spoke about the pity of splitting the party. It was so dark that I did not know who it was. I did not know McOormick until he was in the box yesterday. Mr Joynt objected to getting out the particulars of the interview. Mr Pilliet did not know who it was, and besides McCormiok was the witness of the respondent. Mr Harper did not press the question. Examination continued—l knew that Mr Toomer was a candidate. I was leaving the meeting at Phillipstown when Mr Toomer got up to speak. The meeting declined at first to hear him, as they thought that he was an opposition candidate, and was going to attack me. He said, "After hearing the admirable exposition of his views by Mr Pilliet, I beg to retire in his favor." I did not meet Mr Toomer in committee before the election. The only time I met him was when he signed the protest against the statements made in the petition published in the "Telegraph." Mr Buok was continually asking me to appoint a canvasser, and then he reoommended Scott. I was asked by Mr Clephane if I could not get soma one gifted with clerical knowledge to assist tho committee at Phillipstown. Remembering what Buok had told me about Soott, I went to his office. I Slid, "lam Mr Pilliet." I thon said, "Are you doing anything ? I hoar you are interesting yourself in my return." He said, " I was en Mr Oowlishaw'e committee, but somo of the Bingsland people pressed me to work for you." I said, "Mr Jamieson of the Phillipstown committee complains of not having time to do what is necessary. Will you join that committee?" He said, " With pleasure." I told him that Mr Clephane wanted him at one o'olook at his house to take three electoral rolls. I said, " Jump into a cab, buy theae rolls, and take them to Mr Clephane. I understand that you are a law clerk." He said "Yes." I said, " You will be very useful to tho committee, as the new legislation with respect to elections is very difficult to comprehend." I gave him £2 on his telling me that the rolls were 10s each. I did not know that Scott was an elector. I never gave it a thought whether he was an elector or not. I said,

" The £2 is to pay the cab. If you want more money Jamieeon may give you the balance of the money of mine he has for legal expenses, or you can come to me and get some." He then went away, and I never saw him during the election, except when be asked me for money. I never gave him £9. I wrote about £9 in my letter because I answered his letter in a hurry and without thinking. All I gavo him was £7, including the £3 I have spoken of. Scott rendered me no account till I got the letter asking for £54. I never knew of his hiring a buggy. Scott told me that ho wanted to pny for bocks, advertising, and printing circulars. I paid him the money for these expenses, but I found that ho had been robbing me. I found that ho did not pay theße acoounts, but put the money in his pocket. The statement of accounts sent in by Scott contains items which I paid. The item, " Rent of school, Phillipstown, £2 10s," I paid myself. I gave it to the woman who takes care of the school. It was paid aftor the polling. Soott charges £1 10s for rent of oommittee room at Knightstown, which was given free of cost. The item, "Medley £l," charged here, I paid myself. The item, " Cab hire 7s, for Mr Jamioson," was not paid, as the cab was free. I gave Scott £2 when he waß going away to Knightstown one day especially to pay cab hire. Shortly after this the oabman owne to

me for 16 j cab hire, whioh excited my »uspicion. In this bill there ia an item £3 2s 6d expenses on the election day, though Soott was charging me £3 10s per day, whioh made the oharge for the election day £6 12s 63. Soott has sworn that I gave him £3 on the polling day, so that this makes over £l2 he has tried to charge for that one day. The letter dated January 9th I think was addressed to me. The letter from Soott to me was written in my house. Mr Hubbard was present when the draft was written, but not when the latter part of the letter was written. It is absolutely falso that I gave Soott £3 or any money on this occasion. Hubbard brought Soott to see me, but I refused to see him. I said I would not see such a scoundrel, I was prevailed upon to accept his profession of penitence, or whatever ho wanted to say. I was exceedingly angry at the attorn pi to black mail me with an aoouunt of £75. I said, " This man is a scoundrel, and has attempted to black mail mo." Scott said, "I am very sorry I sent in that account. I was prompted to do it." I said, " This will be made public, and by the law the mere perfume of a promise to pay will do me harm." Scott said, " I know I am not entitled to it." I said, "Put itdown in black and white." He said, " I camehere far that purpose." Soott did not object to a word in the letter; I wrote the letter partially to do away with the idea of any promise being made. I kept a oopy of the letter I wrote to Scott on January 6th, I wrote it immediately on the receipt of Soott's letter to me, within five minutes of opening it. I received a letter from Soott, asking me to destroy all letters, &o. ; but I refused to do so, as I felt I was being tried to be trapped. While Mr Soott was writing the letter in my house, he said, " You know how very poor I am. I have been working for Mr Oowlishaw einoe the eleotion." He then told me that the account whioh had been sent to me had been written under dictation. He then said, " Will you lend me £5." I said, " Not a shilling you ever will pet from me." He then said, " I must have £3 to-night." Until recently I did not know that Scott asserted that I gave him £3. It was only the day before the trial commenced. I have had no personal communication with Soott sinoe the petition has been filed. Scott said something to me when he came to my house about Jimmy Goodman and Feast. I gathered from what he said that he was employed by Jimmy Goodman. Soott told me several stories about the letters—one that it was burnt, another that it was lost, and thirdly that Mr James Goodman was prepared to make an affidavit that the letter had been burnt. I never spoke to Mr Oonrlishaw daring the eleotion. I don't think he had any politics exoept his pooket. I did not pay any money to my oomtnitteo to pay Toomer's expenses, or know anything about it. The only two people I gave money to for expenses were Jamieson and Soott, who aoted as secretaries of the committee. The question of payment for his servioes was never mentioned between Soott and myself. I never said one word that would lead him to suppose that he would be paid. I probably would have paid him had I been assed there and then, as I never gave it a thought. I told my oommittee that I would not be mixed up with them, but if they had asked me to pay Mr Scott so much per day I should do it. I thought at first that he was not to be paid, but when I saw him doing peculiar and useless work I expeoted he would send in an aooount, and if my oommittee had told me to pay him I should have done so. He was very busily engaged doing nothing, and therefore I thought he was a man who was expecting to be paid. He was a man who I thought would go to the oommittee and ask for money. I saw Soott one day going from hotel to hotel drinking, and I thought he would ask the oommittee for money. I never even hinted during the eleotion that Soott should be paid. The com mittees all understood that he was working for nothing. I had nothing to do with him during the eleotion. ■ Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l do not remember when I first made up my mind to oome out for Stanmore. The requisition to , me appeared on the 19th Ootober. I think , about a week after that I prooured a oopy of the eleotoral roll. I first saw the Corrupt , Practices Aot at my house a good while after , my candidature. I never opened the Aot or . looked at it till after I was returned, nor had ■ any knowledge of it further than the tele- • graphic summaries whioh are sent to the looal papers here. I made up my mind to j fight the eleotion in suoh a manner that there would be no need for my having a knowledge i of the provisions of the Aot. I never even ( asked a man for a vote. I have no recollection of the date when I had my first interview with Scott. I think it rrm a fortnight , before the polling. I was quite ignorant of the faot that it was against the law to engage | Scott. I swear that I engaged Mr Soott ( simply as a committee man, beoause Buck . told me he was living in my distriot and can- ; vassing for me, whioh surprised me. I said he was just the man we wanted. I never : mentioned the word committee-man to Soott. j Something was said about clerical work. I \ said that Mr Olephane told me that there was , some clerical work to do in oonneotion with , the Phillipstown oommittee, and as he took an interest in my eleotion, would he do it. He said , " Yea." I never gave it a thought about Soott j being paid beyond expenses legally allowed. . I had an idea that he would try to levy < money from us unwarrantably. I arrived at ( this conclusion a week or so after he joined | the committee. One of the reasons was the , oab affair, to which I have alluded. I ; thought all the time that he was entitled to j be paid, but I thought that he was going to , do the same as the other committee-men— , join my committee and work without being paid, beoause I had been told by tbe Knightstown oommittee that they were going to fight the election so that they oould be j proud to say they eleoted me without any , expense, exoept what was legally allowed. I thought Soott was entitled to be paid, beoause any elector, I thought, oould be paid, or that any man would be entitled to be paid for the work they were all doing. If I had been asked that the other members of the oommittee should be paid, in my ignorance of the Oorrupt Praotioes Aot, I should have paid it. I did not consider Mr Soott was entitled to more remuneration than any other member of the committee. After the election if any member of the committees had asked me for payment at so much per diem I would not have paid it.

His Honor Mr Justice Johnston did not think that the questions now asked by Mr Joynt were relevant. Mr Joynt said he submitted he was entitled to ask the questions he was doing to lead up to a eertain point. Cross-examination continued—By saying in my letter to Scott, " Of course you should be paid so much per diem as committee clerk," I meant this. The blackmailing letter demanding £75, quite took my breath away, and that of my committees. The impression that he ought to be paid so much per day was on my mind before I received the blackmailing letter. I never suggested any particular sum as wages. If the man had sent me in a reasonable bill I might have sent him to my committee to get it. I never engaged Scott. He came to me to express his penitence for having attempted to blackmail me, and also for the purpose, I believe, of extorting money from me. His attempt to borrow £5 was, I thought, decidedly an attempt to extort money. The man had received £7 from me for expenses, which he has not accounted for. The two letters of 9:h and 10th of January were written against my wish. I did not think muoh|of the letters, but my friends wished them, ani I gave in. Scott admitted that he had no right to send in his account, or had any right to reoeive money at all. I never heard that he threatened to summon me. I have given Jamieson two or three sums of money—l should think, altogether, £13 —to pay expenses, such as cabs for the committee, advertising, &3. I gave Scott £7; but he says I gave him £9. I took it for granted Scott would keep an account of it. It would, of course, be his duty to do so, as he had to account for it. I cannot give the dates when paid, or amounts of money given by me to Soott. I think I gavo £2 at the first and £4 all in the lump. I cannot swear that I gave Scott only £7, but I swear that he did not get more than this, probably only £6. It is absolutely untrue that I gave Scott money on the day before the election. Had he asked me for it I would have' given it to him. Soott has never accounted for the money I havo given him till now. I see an account here rendered for £7 lis expended, leaving a balance in my favor of £1 9s. The account of his disbursements is a false one. Each of the sheets of these accounts are absolutely oooked. He does not show on the disbursements that of the rent of the Fhillipstown school. Soott wants me to pay his money to pay acoounts which he says are owing, and j which he will have to pay. Scott told me 1 he expeoted to pay these" accounts, yet I have

paid a cumber of them myself. I forget whether I was editor of the " Telegraph " newspaper on October 19th lost. I now remember I was not. My oontract as editor expired on the 12th October. I did not write the leading article in the *' Telegraph " of the 19th October, I now think I wrote it.

_Mr Joynt —Now, with your Honor's permission, we will read this article. It is only two columns long. Mr Harper objected. Mr Joynt said that the reason why this was put in was to contradict Mr Piliiot's sta:ement that he had not read the Corrupt Practices Act before the election. The article was an able exposition no doubt of the law as to corrupt practioes. With their Honor's permission he would read the article.

The learned counsel then proceede i to read the article as appearing in the " Telegraph" of October 19th, which was on the subject of the Corrupt Practices Act. His Honor Mr Justioe Johnston remarked that it was a very good article indeed. ' m Witness—l never read the Corrupt Practices Act. The leader ie written from the telegraphic summaries of the Aot sent to the local papers. That is how leaders are made. The technicalities in that leader are copied word for word from the telegraphic digest of the Aot. I do not remember telling any member of my committee that I had a oopy of the Act on the 6fch January. The Court then adjourned till 2 p.m. On the Court resuming, Mr Harper Baid that the other side admitted that Mr Hackworth was not a member of Mr Pilliet's committee.

This closed the respondent's case. Mr Harper proceeded to address the Court on the case. The whole election had been gone into to prove all the surrounding circumstances, as the case bad atsumed a semipolitical character. Whether what had been proved would have any effect on the legal questions to be tried by their Honors was another matter. The 12th clause of the Corrupt Prao'ices Aofc dealt with the illegal practioe of having more clerks than was allowjd by the Act not being electors, or the employment of a clerk or messenger being an eleotor. In the English Act no illegal practices made the election voidable, only corrupt practices doing this ; but the Legislature of New Zealand had made the colonial Act more stringent, though it was true the punishment for illegal practices was not so much as that for corrupt practices. The punishment in this case was also divided into two classes, one being applicable to the act done with the knowledge of the oandidate, the other as to the aot done by the oommittee of a candidate. The illegal praotioes, he might say, are set out in the clauses dealing with them. He would submit that there was nothing in the Aot to bring the allegation that Mr Pilliet had not furnished the list of scrutineers or clerks to the returning officer within tne term in the Aot of illegal practioes. Indeed, the fact of the returning officer refusing to allow the scrutineers to act was a sufficient proof of this. Besides the candidate would be liable to a fine, which he submitted took it out of the action of the clause with regard to illegal praotioes. The Aot being a penal one must be construed strictly, and no one part could be brought into another. This being so, he should submit that Mr Pilliet had not been guilty of an offence under the illegal praotioes clauses. With regard to the illegal practices clauses, there was no analogous law in England, hence he oould not quote authorities. All that the English law provided for was the Btriking out of the vote tendered by any eleotor acting as clerk or messenger. But, as he had said, the New Zealand Legislature had gone further than this, and imposed certain punishments. He now submitted that they should for the moment put aside the evidence of Scott and Pilliet as to the engagement made with Scott. Whilst admitting that the counsel on the other side would icake use of the letter written by Mr Pilliet, he desired to point out that it was written unguardedly and whilst Mr Pilliet was suffering under great excitement. It was, therefore, for their | Honors to say whether that was sufficient to convict Mr Pilliet of an illegal practice. He ] eubmitted that the petitioner was bound to prove that there had been payment or promise of payment to Scott beyond legal expenses. The expenditure of £9 was perfectly legal, but Scott said that £3 was paid to him by Mr Pilliet on the occasion when he went to Mr Pilliet's house with Mr Hubbard. He should ask their Honors to disbelieve Soott on the evidence of Mr Hubbard and Mr Pilliet. The latter swore that he never paid the £3, but on the contrary that Scott aaked him to lend him £5 and £3, so that all they had was Scott's statement. In a technioal case

like this, where, if Mr Pilliet had committed an offence, it was of a very trifling and genial character, the petitioner was bound to show clearly that payment had been made to an elector beyond legal expenses. It was not likely that Soott would keep the knowledge of the receipt of the £3 to himself, and yet they found that it was only when the petition came on that it cropped up. Therefore he submitted he was entitled to claim that this was an afterthought. He had no objection to admit that he believed Mr Filliet thought Scott would be paid, but he made no statement to Scott, nor any promise of payment, nor was there any expression of such an arrangement. Therefore he submitted the other side were bound to prove both by writing and verbal evidenoe tbat there had been a distinct promise of payment to Scott for what he was going to do. As the consequences for a mere slip were eo critical he was bound to put the most technical construction before their Honors. Now as to the letter, about which eo much had been said, and whioh had been obtained under such ourious circumstances. The words relied upon by side were, " Of course you will be paid so much a day as a committee clerk," and also " The remuneration was not mentioned, and I presume it will be of a reasonable nature." Now, there was no presumption that an engagement was entered into to make payment for services to bo rendered. Indeed, Mr Pilliet in the letter he had written, whioh he regretted having done, stated that no arrangement was made about payment. He submitted that there was not a tittle of evidence to show that Pilliet had promised Soott payment to induoe him to record his vote in his favor. Even supposing there had been a written contract with Scott, ■o long as no payment was men!ioced or expressed it could not be taken as an illegal practice. There might be a mutual agreement in each of the minds of the parties that Soott was to be paid; but not expressed as regarded the letters of which so muoh had been said, written by Soott, he admitted that they were written so as to show plainly that Soott had not been engaged for payment. Surely, if the other side were allowed to get possession of the letter by the means stated in evidence, and to extract evidence from Toomer in the way that had been done, it was allowable for letters to be written to show what was the true position of Soott with regard to the election. He desired to | point out that it was necessary to prove that there was a direct promise of payment to bring them within the strict letter of the law regarding illegal praotices. Mr Pilliet, knowing as he did from the telegraphio summary of the Act what its provisions were, would never have employed an eleotor as a clerk or servant. Therefore their Honors were entitled to ask for the other side to prove most distinctly that a promise had been made of payment. He mbmitted this, that as the present petition was one of the moßt technical evor presented to an Election Court, and as there had been no engagement or promise to pay, they were entitled to have letters written to show that no such engagement or promise existed. There was not a tittle of evidence that Scott had been paid one farthiDg for his services. All that could be said was that the £3 Soott allezed to have received from Mr lMliet was given as a bonus, but he would desire to point out that the evidence of Mr Pilliet and Mr Hubbard was distinctly opposed to this. In justice to Mr Pilliet, ho muet soy this, that if their Honors were driver, by the technical construction of the Act, to decide that a slip had been made by Mr Pilliet, there waß not one word in the evidence to show that Mr P.liiet had been guilty of corrupt practices, or that he had done what win wrom? under the Aot with hio eyes open. Now w th regard to the alleged payment to Toomer lo retire. He submitted that there ws.s not one tittle of evidence to support the allegation. Besides he should submit that there was no such offence under the Act as " induo men to retire." There was nothing in the evidence to prove that there was any oomniunioation with Toomer as to his retiring if his expenses were paid, Toomer retiring on hi« 05Fn responsibility. The committee behii d Mr Pilliet's back, and without his kuowlodg . arranged to pay Mr Toomer's expenses. »he aotion of the committee in doing this after Mr Toorr er had retired could not by any mi a is bring Mr Pilliet within the eoope of the

clause in the Aot. The evidence led by the other aide respecting this transaction was exceedingly weak, attempting to bring out the inference that Toomer had retired in pursuance of a previous arrangement to pay his expenses. It was not right that Mr Pilliet should suffer, even if Mr Toomer was eleotorally corrupt, unless it could be proved that Mr Pilliet or his committee were connected with the matter. Mr Oowlishaw wbb far too keen a lawyer to take the extraordinary course he had done to get what he thought wbb satisfactory evidence if anything straightforward could be obtained. He might draw their Honors attention to the Coventry election petition (Stavely Hill v Gray), in which it was laid down that it was legal to pay a candidate's expenses. There was no evidence, he eubmitted here to oonneot Mr Pilliet with the payment of the mouey to Mr Toomer. His Honor Mr Justice Johnston would like to hear Mr Harper as to whether in law if the* petitioner proved the allegation as to Toomer, the respondent could be brought under the corrupt practices clause in the Act. Mr Harper said he had traced all the case* baok, but was unable to see how this could bebrought under the head of corrupt practice!. Mr Justice Johnston said so far as he could aee the case would come under clause 3. [Lpft sitting.!