STRATFORD PETITION

Hokitika Guardian, 19 March 1920, Page 4

STRATFORD PETITION

ELECTION DECLARED VOID. MR MASTERS EXONERATED. [PBU PH KBS ASSOCIATION. COPYRIGHT., STRATFORD, March 18 The Election Court delivered judgment this afternoon. It 'ield that there was no corrupt practice regarding the supply of music on October 30tli and the music and pictures on December 16th. It held that the supply of pictures and music on December 16th constituted an illegal practice and the Court had no option but to declare the election void. It was decided that no disability be imposed on Mr Masters. "We are of the opinion that he was guilty of no corrupt practice,” says the judgment, “and the illegal practice was done openly and without any idea that he was violating the law.”

question of entertainment

Payment might be made for the ex-' pease of holding a public meeting, but not for providing entertainment thereat. Payment was not allowed for bauds.

Sir Robert Stout: Is not a political meeting always a free entertainment ?

Mr Myers: I suppose it is, except from tlio candidato’B point of view. Mr Myers continued that candidates rightly or wringly placed great importance on the last word to electors.

Sir Robert Stout: In the case of au election, candidates do not have the last word; the electors have it. Air Myers said that when Mr Hine heard of APriMastora’p. meeting, and the pictures being held, lie decided not to speak at Stratford. Mr Justice Chapman: Mr Masters’s show acted as mustard plaster.

Counsel read an advertisement from the Stratford “Post” reading as follows :

“King’s Cinema Theatre, Tuesday night, free pictures 7.30 to 8.30. Robert Masters will address electors at 8.30.”

Counsel said that if that sort of thing was permitted by the law, the sooner the law was altered the better. It was not good for the country, and did not raise the standard of the ethics of political life. When the picture theatre was offered to Mr Hine, he did not reply to the offer, thinking then that it would not he proper. MUSIC AND POLITICS.

An orenosira played uunng Lne meeting arfcl counsel held tuat the orenostra was a baud, and it was specifically not permitted, for bauds. Sir John Findlay said he wouid not admit that an orchestra was a band. Mr Myers said it was quite impossible to say how many were attracted to the meeting by the pictures and how many by 'the speech.. Many hundreds were present. Mr Justice Chapman: How many voters were present?

Mr Myers: There was an order to exclude children. Probably all adults were present. This is an important point. Counsel asked if this sort of thing was allowed by the law, where would it end? If Mr Masters’s action was permissible it meant that the wealthy candidate could entertain electors every night. What was there to prevent candidates hiring a hall used by a vaudeville company and engaging also the chief .stars.

Sir Robert .Stout: According to some New Zealand municipalities you cannot entertain people without horse races. The Prince of Wales cannot be entertained without horse races.

At Mr Masters’s meeting at the Town Hall on October 30th., continued Mr Myers, Mr Masters did not rely on his own eloquence, but hired an orchestra the leader of which received payment from Mr Masters’s secretary and the amount was not shown in the list of expenses called for by law. Sir John Findlay: It was paid out of Mr Masters’s own pocket.

Mr Myers: I venture to say that that sort of thing is not going to be allowed by any election court in this country.

Sir John Findlay: Ho you say Mr Masters’s secretary paid the money ? Mr Myers: Yes.

Sir J ohn Findlay: We say it was paid by a member of his committee, [flip orchestra only received fifteen shillings for work on October 30th. Mr Myers: If the payment was corrupt, the largeness or smaJlnoss of the amount is immaterial.

MR JUNE’S STOItY. John Bird iiino said that he had been a. member oi the House since 1008, and this last was his fifth election campaign He had intended to speak on the eve of the election in the Town Hall at Stratford, his desire being to address a meeting in the biggest centre of the electorate. He had the date pencilled. He received a letter from the Amusements Company offering him for payment stipulated the use of the Picture Theatre on any night except that before polling day. He did not reply to the letter. He took the Town Hall on the Monday before the election, and cancelled his pencilling of the hall for Tuesday. Counsel: Why did you not speak in the Town Hall on Tuesday? Witness: It was common property round the town that Mr Masters was going to give a free picture show, although at that stage it was not advertised, and that this show would ruin my meeting. I thought a great number of people would go to the picture show. Sir John Findlay 'suggested to Mr Hine that he could have addressed a mooting on Tuesday and ho would 1 avo got an audience. Witness said he would have got an audience, but it would have been a partisan audience. He would have had no chance against the picture show. Mr Justico Chapman: He might have found himself in competition with the Charlie Chaplin. Mr Myers: And I think Charlie Chaplin would win. Sir John Findlay (to witness): And you shrank from that kind of competition.

Witness: Yes. r Arthur Edward Copping, managing * editor of the Stratford ‘lEi§ning JJcst.”

said that in his experience candidates attached much importance to having their last meeting on the eve of the election in the most popular part of the district.

To Sir John Findlay : There were two advertisements of Mr Masters’s meeting of December 16, one only of which had reference ho free pictures. The free pictures advertisement was put in by Mr Ward, manager of the picture theatre. Witness was unaware of any authority from Mr Masters for this advertisement of the free show. On January 22 he received a letter from Mr Masters.

Mr Myers: A niontli after the election. The petition was served on January 24. Witness said that Air ATasters wrote that the inclusion of the free pictures advertisement in his account was a mistake and that witness must look to Mr Ward for payment. Witness refunded the money to Mr Masters and charged the item to Mr Ward.

To Mr Myers: Mr Masters and his firm were regular advertisers in his paper.