ELECTION PETITIONS COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2456, 18 February 1882, Page 3

ELECTION PETITIONS COURT.

BTANMOEE. Eeidat, Feibitabt 17. [Before their Honors Mr Justice Johnston and Mr Justice Williams/] WM. PATTEN OOWLISHAW V WALTBB HIPPOLITE PILLIET, The following is a continuation of thi* case after our going to press yesterday : Mr Harper said that he would desire to point out to their Honors that Mr Pilliet and Mr Toomer were on the same political platform, and the presumption would be that he would vote for Mr Pilliet. He submitted to their Honors that there must be a direct connection of Mr Pilliet or his committee with a promise to Mr Toomer to pay his expenses, as a condition for bis retirement, and he contended that there was no such connection proved. With regard to the evidence of Mr Jamieson, he was crossexamined very strictly to show that he was extremely anxious to obtain possession of the very indiscreet letter written by Mr Pilliet. He (Mr Harper) oonld quite understand how anxious they were to keep themselves and Mr Pilliet free from any consequences under the very strict and penal Act, and they were entitled so to do. Several other points were brought forward and afterwards withdrawn, so that really now the charges were narrowed down to two, viz., the payment to Scott and payment to Toomer. If the other side proved the first charge, it would oust Mr Pilliet from his seat iu the General Assembly for three years, and deprive him of his office of J.P. This punishment for a simple slip was quite sufficient, and the other side should be content with this, and not try to push forward the other charge of corrupt practice. What he wanted to point out to their Honors was this, that if they were of opinion without bearing the other side that Mr Pilliet had been guilty of a simple slip, the other side should not carry on the animus which had been displayed throughout the trial. Mr Joynt—l have displayed no animus. Mr Harper—No; but the petitioner has. What he wanted to show was this, that the penalties for corrupt practices were so heavy, that if the other side could prove them, which he did not admit, Mr Pilliet would be very heavily punished for what he never had anything to do with. In. England the best men had been found guilty of corrupt practice* through their agent, and, more than that, he wished to call attention to the fact that there was a difference in the word “corruption’' as applied to bribery, and the merj technical term used in the Act.

His Honor Mr Justice Johnston said, what Mr Harper was asking them to do was, if they felt that the evidence proved that there had been illegal practices, they should stop there. Mr Harper did not admit that his client had been guilty of illegal practice. Mr H a rper said decidedly not. What ha wanted to put before their Honors was this: if they were satisfied that there was a oasa that an illegal practice had been committed, the punishment should be awarded on that only. Mr Joynt said his learned friend wanted him to abandon the major part of the case, which he contended was proved, but would not admit that his client bad been guilty of the minor offence, which he could not consent to. He submitted that the petitioner had proved his case as regarded the engagement and payment of Scott as a clerk, ha being an elector, and also the inducement to Toomer to retire. His Honor Mr Justice Johnston invited Mr Joynt to state under what clause the alleged inducement to Toomer came, Mr Joynt said under clause 3, which made it a corrupt practice for a candidate to give money or promise to any one to secure his return, or to induce him to vote for such candidate. This, of course, was the most difficult of proof, because they had had to take their evidence as it were out of the lion’s mouth He invited their Honors to consider the evidence led to prove that Mr Toomer had retired with the understanding that the expenses should be paid. CMr Joynt then proceeded to review the evidence given on this point by Messrs Olephane, McCormick, and Jamieson.] He admitted that there was a link wanting to prove that Toomer heard from McCormick that Olephane said it was probable that the committee would pay his expenses, but the presumption was from the evidence that he did. He submitted that the Court was entitled to draw the inference that the money was paid by Jamieson to Toomer, because at that time Jamieson had £lO of Mr Pilliet’s money in his hands. Further than this, Mr Pilliet said he gave Jamieson a cheque for something under £lO, and Mr Towner's expenses were £9 9s, or under £lO. He should submit that there must be taken to be proved that there was a prospective promise of payment to Toomer, followed by payment of the money. As Toomer said himself, it was a matter of £ s. d. As regarded the question of the engagement of Mr Seott, he intended to contrast the credibility of Mr Scott and Mr Pilliet, and he should contend that the evidence of the latter was fallacious, and fell to pieces so soon as a test was applied to it. It was proved that no return was made by Mr Pilliet of his paid scrutineers, and on being reminded by the returning officer be replied that he had paid no one in conn;ction with the elections or promised to psy any one. Now Mr Medley had been engaged as scrutineer, and Mr Pilliet had paid him £1 himself. He also contended that the evidence of Mr Pilliet’s committeemen, except Mr Olephane, had been shown to be equivocal, to say the least of it, particularly that of Mr Jamieson and Mr Hubbard. He submitted that there was evidence of the recognition of the right of Seott to payment for his services by Mr Pilliet in the letter of the 6th January and by Mr Hubbard. Ho should contend that they had proved that there was a larger number of committee rooms engaged than was permitted by the Act. The cose made out by the petitioner was strong as regarded the two points of the engagement of Scott and payment of Toomer to retire, and he should ask their Honors to hold that the cace on these had been fully made out. His Honor Mr Justice Johnston said that the Court would consider the case, and weigh the evidence in all its bearings, as it was by far too important a case to give judgment off hand. What they intended to do therefore was to adjourn till Monday afternoon at three o’clock. The Court then adjourned till 3 p.m. on Monday.