AN ELECTION ECHO.

Hokitika Guardian, 1 May 1926, Page 4

AN ELECTION ECHO.

CANDIDATE SUED. BLENHEIM, April 2!). An echo of the general election campaign of last year was heard at the Magistrate’s .Court, before Air T. E. Maimsell, S.AL, when Robert Burgess., now of Christchurch, describing himself as organising secretary for Mr B. J. Cooke (who contested the Wnirati seat in the interests of the Labour Party) proceeded against Air Cooke and certain officials of the Wairau branch, of the party to recover the sum of £3O, alleged to he due to him as salary for his services during the election cam--P a S in - .„ , , The defemlaus counter-claimed tor the recovery of moneys alleged to have been,received by the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendants, these amounts being set out as followsßalance of petty cash £0 10s 10d; cash received for “party buttons” sold or buttons to the value of £5; and price of a mimeograph sold bv plaintiff, £‘2; making a total counter-claim of £l3 Kis lOd. The coun-ter-claim, however, was abandoned on plaintiff's counsel objecting that it had not been filed two clear days before the hearing. ACCURACY OF All NOTE*. Plaintiff’s evidence had been taken in Christchurch, and he was not present at the hearing. He relied on a minute dated September 3 appointing him secretary at £5 per week, but- the defence alleged that this minute hnd I icon “faked” and produced a different set of minutes covering the same meeting these showing that Burgess was appoTuted without salary, though it was understood that his expenses would be paid. The defence went further and said that all Burgess’s travelling expenses had been paid by the candidate as they were incurred, hut that after the election, Burgess was given a sum of CIO to c-oVjpr any odd exfienses which lie might have met himself. CO AIM ITT EE’S TROUBLES. B. J. Cooke, the defendant, on being asked if lie was the defeated Labaur candidate, replied cheerfully II Too true I am!” He was cross-examined at'* some length by Air Al’Nab on behalf of plaintiff, and his aimers to tho c|UCslions gave a hint as to tlie difficulties, financial and otherwise, under which the committee had to labour, with a split in the camp thrown in hv way of adding spice to the occasion. Afr Af’Nah: Did matters go smoothly with the Labour candidate?—AVc ought to have won. AVc had a good hearing. ■ Laugliter.) AY ere there no disputes with Mr Burgess?—There was a little friction.

AA’lien was that?—Witness said it arose out of Burgess’s failure to show the witness a telegram from Air Nash, announcing that he was going to speak in Blenheim, with the result that the local committee had no knowledge of Air Nash’s projected visit until the day before lie arrived, so that no adequate arrangements could ,bc made for the. meeting. Ic was purely an accident iliat the witness became aware of the projected visit at all.

"When we denounced his neglect,” proceeded the witness. “I spoke to him like a Dutch uncle!” li FLAT lONS STRAINED.

Replying to a further question, witness said that despite this struggle and other points of friction Burgess had never resigned, though it was a fact that for the last two weeks of the campaign relations were very strained and the witness travelled around the electorate without Air Burgess. The party did not dismiss him because il was not thought desirable to have a “flare up” at that, stage of the campaign. Counsel: You consider that the min-ute-book put in by Air Burgess is trumped up?—l have vt'ry strong opinions of it. Do you suggest tiiint Burgess “faked” this minute-hook and forged the signatures in confirmation of the various minutes?—l have very strong convictions on il—very strong. The Magistrate: Do you know ATr Uothwell's signature?—l do not. Counsel read extracts from the minutes. which witness admitted were a true record of what had taken place. “ And yet von suggest that these] minutes are ‘framed up’?”—l have very strong convictions. Vott will see that there are different coloured inks. NO BANKING ACCOUNT. Counsel continued to question the witness in regard to the signatures which the witness said ho did not know. AYho was authorised to sign cheques? —No one. No one could sign cheques?—AYe hail no hanking account.. The Alagistratc: Then cheques would not he much good?—Not on your life. We had no funds. The witness added that at one time the committee considered opening a hanking account, hut nothing came of it. The Magistrate: T take it that that proposal arose during the hopeful stages of the campaign?-—Too true! AYe had great hopes, but they came to nothing.

The Magistrate: You had great expectations ?—Yes, and we came a “ thud ” !

Mr M’Nah: Early in the campaign Tturgess was not taken with you on your trips around the electorate?— That is so. * DANGEROUS GROUND. Why was that?—lt is very dangerous ground and I have,,-purposely kept off it. f ask you to not to press the question for the sake of Mr Burgess himself and particularly for the sake of his wife and children. Mr MaeNnb: Well, the fact remains that lie was not taken with you, and it is obvious that there was some unpleasantness. Tf lie was not satisfactory to you, why didn’t you dismiss him?— For the simple reason that we didn’t want to show a split in .oil r party. The Magistrate: Did you contemplate that the campaign would cost you anything personally?—No, all my expenses were to be paid? Mr MaeNnb:By whom?—By the N.Z. Labour Party. The Magistrate: Did you have their authority to engage a. secretary at £5 per week ?—No. Mr Mac Nab; Didn’t they want an estimate of the cost of the campaign? —Yes. We supplied it and it was produced in Court. Tho total estimate was £205.

Was there any guarantee that the Labour Party would poy your expenses ?—There was no actual guarantee.

In reply to other questions as to whether all his election expenses were paid, tho witness said they,had been paid cr arranged for.

The Magistrate found for the defendants. with £5 11 s costs.