STANMORE ELECTION PETITION.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2457, 20 February 1882, Page 3

STANMORE ELECTION PETITION.

THE JUDGMENT. [Before their Honors Mr Justice Johnston and Mr Justice Williams.] The Court re-opened at 3 p.m. W. P. COWLISHAW T W. H. PIMJBT. Their Honors delivered judgment in this case at three o'clock. Considerable interest was evinced in the case, the Court being filled. The judgment of their Honors, whioh was delivered by his Honor Mr Justice Johnston, was as follows : The judgment stated that it had been urged on them that as the stringency of the law was far greater here than at home, a liberal construction should bo placed upon its provisions. Their Honors felt that though hardship might result, they were bound to construe the law as they found it, without reference to the effects upon the parties interested. The present case was one whioh would be a warning in the future, suggesting to candidates and their agents the necessity of great care in seeing that nothing was done, even innocently, which might be construed as an infraction of the law. In the present case they found that in some parts at least there was a cor.flict of evidence, and they had been asked by counsel to measure the evidence as given on eaoh side. And here the Court could not pass over the way in which the case had been got up ; the employment of a private deteotive and the proceedings at the White Hart Hotel seemed to the Court not to speak favorably of the petitioner. On the contrary, it seemed to the Court that the petitioner was influenced by private rather than public motives. [Applause from the body of the Court.] His Honor—" If any person makes the slightest demonstration of approval or disapproval he will certainly be committed." On the other hand, the anxiety of the petitioner to prevent the case being heard, and getting Scott to write a letter stating that he had never received or been promised payment was not creditable. The question of corrupt practices was raised by the allegation that Toomer had been induced to retire by payment made through Pilliet. The Court were of opinion that this part of the case was not proved, as the respondent had been proved to have been aiked to do so, but refused at once. The evidence in support of the petitioner's view consisted chiefly of the statements of Toomer taken down at the White Hart. The discreditable manner in whioh this evidence was obtained, and the statement made by Toomer that he gave evasive answers, placed this evidence entirely out of Court. As regarded the oharge of illegal praotice by the engagement of Scott, there wes a conflict of evidence. The respondent stated that he was unaware both that Scott wai an eleotor, and that it was illegal to employ him if he were. Any doubts that might be raised by the oral evidence was, however, removed by the letter of the respondent of 6th January, On this letter, the Court could not but come to the conclusion that there was an understanding that Scott should receive payment, and he beinganelectorit was an illegal practice As regarded the allegation of treating, and taking into consideration Scott's conduct as regarded the writing of the letters and his evidence not being substantiated, the Court were of opinion that this allegation was not substantiated. As regarded the non-sending of lists of soruticears that would not have affected the election. The next charge was one of having provided conveyances for eleotors, but this was not proved, and had it been it would not have been an offence under the Act. With regard to the question of exoess of committee rooms it was proved that one room was given gratuitously, and a tent was not used, whiob, however, it was contended, was not in the electoral district. It seemed to the Court that the trifling sum paid for by the committee might well be placed under the heading of miscellaneous expenses. The Court, therefore, had to declare that an Illegal praotice had taken place, and that the election was void. The Court were, however, of opinion that the respondent in entering into the engagement with Scott was not aware that he was controverting the Aot. As regarded Scott, the Court proposed to fix a day for him to show oauso why he should not be reported for an illegal praotice. They wero bound so to report him, but at the same time they were also bound to give him an opportunity of showing cause. The Registrar had been directed to issue a notice to John Scott, calling upon him to appear on the 23rd instant at three o'clook p.m., to show cause why he should not be reported for an illegal practice. As regarded costs, tbe Court were of opinion that, as the petitioner had only proved one oharge out of a number of allegations, the majority of which were disproved or withdrawn, they would make no order as to oosts.

His Honor Mr Justice Williams concurred as to the question of cosh. They had, through the number of allegations placed on the record by the petitioner, been engaged about three days. The whole of these, save one, had either been withdrawn or disproved, and therefore, looking at the way the case was got tip, they could not award oost to either side. Order : Seat declared vaoant and eleotion void. No costs.