TAUMARUNUI ELECTION PETITION.

King Country Chronicle, Volume IX, Issue 749, 27 February 1915, Page 5

TAUMARUNUI ELECTION PETITION.

CASE FOR RESPONDENT. INCIDENTS AT THE POLL. MR. JENNINGS' ELEGIBILITY. A QUESTION OF RESIDENCE. (Continued from page 7.) Mr Finlay said as to the alleged methods of James Burns Young, an endeavour had been made by Mr Johnston to establish aa fact that Young was an agent of Mr Jennings. The real fact was that Young was not Mr Jennings' agent, but the agent of the Licensed Victuallers' party. Mr Justice Cooper remarked, in effeet, that apart from the question of agency, tha methods of Young were of great importance in the case. Mr Justice Cooper- The Court is entitled to infer that many of the ballot-papers bearing Young's attestation were attested in blank, for if a man would attest four in blank—and four have been proved —does it not throw doubt, on the whole 600 attested? Mr Justice Chapman: Beyond the. four there were several attempts that never matured. Mr Johnston: Twenty. Mr Justice Cooper: If a man is capable of putting his signature to a Bolemn document as the witness of another signature which be has not seen made, what reliance can be placed on any document attested by such a man? I merely mention that as a point touched on by Mr Johnston; and four of these attestations have been distinctly proved. Mr Justice Chapman: That does not depend on proof of agency. Mr Finlay: No, but it is what an independent person may do in the interest of the license cause. Mr Justice Cooper: Supposing this was a general practice on this man's part, might it not affect the whole of the 600 papers which it is said bore his attestation? We want your assistance in argument on this point, Mr Finlay. You have not touched on it, you know. Mr Justice Chapman: xhat doeß not depend on connecting Mr Jennings with Young. Mr Justice Cooper: Not at all.

Mr Justice Chapman: It is the extent to which the roll is vitiated. Suppose some interloper in this district, no matter in what interests, did collect 600 or an unknown proportion of 600 people on the roll by means of bogus papers. 1 am putting an extreme case, that does not depend on connecting Mr Jennings with these fake or bogus papers. It may be that the roll is vitiated. Mr Finaly: Quite so. I did not think of that point before. Mr Justice Cooper: I thought you didn't. Mr Finlay said that Mr Wilson, the petitioner, could interview some of the 600 parsons affected.

Mr Justice Chapman: Do you mean to say that ha must go to that extent for i thing of this kind.? Mr Finlay: It is unfortunate, but the onus of proof is on him. Mr Justice Cooper: Agency has nothing to do with this. Whan the Court resumed on Thursday, Mr Justice Cooper intimated that the point in respect to the time limit for receiving the petition in the Bay of Islands case was to be argued a a special sittting of the Supreme Court, consisting of Judges Cooper,' Chapman, and Rosking, and possibly Judge Stringer. Judge Cooper suggested that the similar point raised by Mr Finlay should be dealt with at the same time. Messrs Finlay and Johnston could appear and produce further argument or retain the counsel engaged in the Bay of Islands case. Counsel agreed to attend the Court. Judge Cooper also said, in respect to the Napier petition, that the point whether the present law was eoverned fay the Wakanui decision had been removed to the Court of Appeal, and suggested that as certain issues in the Taumarunui case were similarly affected, these points might be removed to the same Court of Appeal by consent. His Honour said whether or not the "decision in the Taumarunui case could not be given till after the Appeal Court decision. The parties could either await the decision 01 agree on the matter at the Appeal Court. Mr Finlay said he was not prepared to reply until he had consulted his client. The evidence of several witnesses for the respondent which was taken showed that they had voted once. Mr Jennings gave evidence to the affect that he had been living practically three years in the Taumarunui electorate, and earning his living therein. . . , . Mr Jennings, continuing his evidence, said his wife endeavoured to sell the property in New Plymouth,but it was withdrawn owing to small offers. His wife resided in New Plymouth to enable the yonnger children to be educated. Witness endeavoured to purchase a house at Te Kuiti, but was unable to finance it owing to the war Witness owned a section at Ohura. He came to the electorate on October 7th or 9th to start his campaign, and was continuously in the electorate till November 15th. Witness set up no committee. He was aware that the Liberal and Labour Federation existed in the district. He had no control over the Federation. He attended one of the meetings of the Federation in Taumarunui with Mr Charles ' Ryan. Witness' connect tjon With Young f was, started by Young telegraphing to witness to stir up the electoral officer who. he stated, would not give him forms. Mr Young was not asked by witness to help Mr Young was not considered the leading Liberal in the town. He would consider Mr Howarth was such, as being president of the Liberal League. After speakng at Taumaruni witness told Mr Young, he did not want him to have anything

to do with his election. I learnt that he was associated with licen3B work, and I did not want him associated with me. I also wrote to Mr Howarth about iny wishes. The official organiser of the Liberal League advertised in the Chronicle, disclaiming any connection with the liquor trade. Witness had no knowledge that Mr Young was doing anything for witness. He denied the statement made by Mr Schramm regarding Mr Young's connection with witness' candidature. Schramm's statement that witness went several times to the room while the scrutiny was proceeding was incorrect. Witness explained that he had arranged to have Mr Buchanan act aa scrutineer. Mr Buchanan came overland from New Plymouth, and witness met hira at Paemako, twenty miles out, with a motor car. Witnesa wired to Mr Schramm to delay the scrutiny one hour. Mr Walsh was temporarily appointed, as he could not stay more than half a day. Witness interviewed Mr Schramm in his office respecting Mr Buchanan acting. He refused, unless he got authority from Wellington. Witness asked to see Mr Walsh, and Mr Schramm brought witness to the room in which the scrutinr? was proceeding. He was only in the room once. With reference to his being in the hooths on polling day, Mr Jennings said he was once inside th 3 door of the Courthouse booth asking for Mr Schramm, twice inside the Municipal Hall booth, once when voting, and once when he accompanied a saan to take his declaration aa a justice of the poaee in order to permit him to vote. Cross-examined by Mr Johnston, witnesa said he had no settle 1 home within the electorate. Witness was appointed a member of the Waitara Harbour Soard as a resident of New Plymouth, He was first appointed in 1903, and attended a meeting in 1913. He registered his claim under the one-month qualification, wishing to be certain,of having been an unbroken month in the electorate.

Mr Jennings here gave some details of transactions with the Bank of New Zealand at Te Kuifi showing he had put through an amount of over £4OO between 1912 and 1914. He had no account at the Te Kuiti bank. His account was at New Plymouth, Continuing, under cross-examina-tion, Mr Jennings said he remembered a tent near the polling booth placarded as Mr Jennings' committee, He advertised in the Chronicle disbanding all committees in case any committePF had been formed and in order to comply with the Act. Mr Justice Chapman: Who advertised vote early and vote for Bill Jennings? Witness: I did your Honour, and with very good effect. Mr Jennings.said he was not a member of the Liberal and Labour League prior ta the election. ■He had joined since. He did not specially desire to get rid of Mr Young when the latter was threatened with prosecution. He did not kick a man when he was down. His desire was due to Mr Young taking to whisky. When he was sober he was one of the cleverest men in New Zealand. Witness admitted when he appointed Mr Walsh scrutineer he did not tell Mr Schramm the appointment was merely temporary. When he appointed Mr Walsh scrutineer the appointment was meant to be only until Mr Buchanan could get here. ' Did not tell Mr Schramm so. The greater portion of the scrutiny of the rolls was performed without witness' scrutineer being present. Mr Buchanan acted for witness in the scrutiny of ballot papers. Wittness did not threaten to telegraph to Wellington concerning the vote of a man on a declaration. In reference to the visit witness paid to the Courthouse booth, witness denied speaking to any ladies inside. He denied that Mr Schramm spoke to him concerning Mr Young, advising him to get rid of him.

To Mr Finlay: Mr Young Was not at any time acting for witness.

John Patrick Murphy, agent, Te Kuiti. said he was deputy returning officer for the license poll at the Courthouse. He saw Mr Jennings come into the booth once. Did not see him speak to any ladies. He was aitting down near the door. William Edward Taylor, accountant, Te Kuiti, was marking off names on roll on election day for Mr Jennings from 1.30 till 6 p,m. Was Btanding with Pitcon and Mr Graham Witness saw Mr Jennings, who did not go into the booth and talk to any ladies. John Francis Walsh, quarry manager, Te Kuiti, said he acted temporarily as scrutineer of the rolls for Mr Jennings. Remembered Mr Schramm and Mr Jennings coming to the room to see him. Heard Mr Jennings ask to see witness. Mr Schramm .objected, but then allowed Mr Jennings to come in. There were in the room Messrs Duff, Woodward, Cochrane and witness. Mr Schramm told Mr Jennings any remarks he had to make would have to be made in the presence of all. Very shortly the other scrutineer objected and said they should get on with the business. Mr Jennings did not go back to the room. If anyone stated, Mr Jennings was in the room three to five times he would be telling a deliberate untruth. To Mr Johnston: Mr Buchanan was not present. Mr Jennings did not appear to be angry. He might have come to the passage outside the door. Witness was a member of Mr Jennings committee, Mr Young was at one or two meetings. He did not know how often the committee met. Mr Jennings did not attend any to witness' knowledge. Witness believed Mr Stanton was secretary. Witness did not stay away because Mr Young was attending the meet? ings.,

To Mr Finlay: It was the Liberal and Labour League, but that waß not particularly emphasised at first. Alfred Vaughan Snadden, accountant, Te Kuiti, said he was one of

the scrutineers of the roll on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers Association, On the first day of the scrutiny Mr Jennings cams in to the room once. Witnesß was in the room until one o'clock. Edward Jackson, labourer, Otorohanea, said he voted at the recent election at Kio Kio and only voted once. To Mr Johnston: Witness was not in the Otorobanga booth on election day. Was not in Otorohanga that day. \ John Markham, contractor, Te Kuiti, said he voted at the Municipal Chambers, Te Kuiti, at the recent election, and only voted once. Charles William Hallett, labourer, Te Kuiti, said he voted at the Te Kuiti Courthouse, and voted only once. Thomas de Vere Hunt, farmer, Matiere, acted electoral returning officer at Mahirakau. The booth was open at two minut9S to nine. Mr West who had charge of the license poll, had the bey to tha school and the ballot boxes. Witness compared his watch with Mr Wests'. Was sura ha opened the school at two minutes to nine. Mr McKean, the scrutineer, was present. No voter called to vote before the booth was ready to receive them. Mr McKean waa incorrect in stating it was 9.30 before the booth was ready. The busiest time was from 2 to 3 p.m. There was, in witness' opinion, never more than from 3 to 5 in the booth. The room was never overcrowded, though the porch was. Witness was satisfied the polling at the booth was absolutely secret.

To Me Johnston: Witness agreed the provision made was not adequate; it was not as it might have been. Witneßs would be surprised to know that anyone was paid to put the room in order. Witness was sure nobody but Mr West could have seen anybody voting, and he would have to stand up and deliberately attempt to see. Ernest West, clerk, Mahirakau, who acted as deputy returning officer for the licensing issue on election day, said the biggest crowd would be between 2 and 3 p.m. The greatest number in the booth at one time would be six, perhaps seven. Was sure the secrecy of the ballot was maintained. Mr McKean remarked after the ballot that everything was perfectly satisfactory. Witness was sure the secrecy was maintained, though the arrangements might have been better. William Wakefield Muir, Mahirakau, jaid he voted at Mahirakau booth. He considered the ballot wa9 secret. James Costello, who voted at Mahirakau, said he was sure it was impossible to see how a person voted at the booth. Henry Nelson, farmer, Mahirakau, gave similar evidence. Frederick Hamner, bushfaller, Mahirakau. said he voted about 4.30 at Mahirakau. He did not think anybody could have seen how a parson voted. Patrick Quinn, labourer, said he voted at Mahirakau between 2 and 2.30 p.m. Nobody could have seen how witness voted.

To Mr Johnston: If witness had gone to mark his paper when the other man was sitting in the desk he might have knocked him down. Edward Clark, labourer, voted at Mahirakau. He want up with a buggy load. One roan was voting when witness went in. Witness went past the man who was marking his paper. If he had tried he probably could have looked over the man's shoulder to see how his paper was being marked. Francis John Rogers, billiard saloon proprietor, Mahirakau, said when he voted he marked his paper back to back with a lady voter. In order for witness to have Been how the lady voted witness Would have had to have crossed the forms or walked round and looked over her shoulder. Nobody in the room saw how witness voted. Witness was in the habit of meeting the men who voted. There was no complaint that the ballot was not secret. It would have been possible to have gone and looked over a person's shoulder to see how they were voting, but the act would have to be deliberate and would have attracted attention.

Peter Cornwall, who voted at Mahirakau, said there were a good many standing in the porch when he arrived. They seemed to be held back there. When witness voted there was nobody else voting. Charles James Johnson., town clerk, Otorohanga, was the returning officer for the electoral poll at the Otorohanga booth on election day. There were three compartments "arranged for voters to retire to mark their papers. The only person who ca™e behind witness during the day Was witness* wife. There was no crowding behind witness. The biggest crowd on the stage at one time receiving papers .would be about eight. Until 2 p.m. there was light voting. A shower came in the afternoon, and a number of people, mostly women, came into the nail. Witness could not understand it if Messrs McDonald and Phillips stated there was a crowd behind the returning officer on the stage. It must have been their imagination. If witness had got the hall cleared he thought a number of voters would have gone away and would not have voted. To Mr Johnston: Witness admitted there was considerable crowding in the ball for a time. Had no reason to doubt Mr McDonald and Mr Phillips, but they were certainly mistaken. Mr McDonald may have been hustled, and that would be pressing on him more than the crowd would. William Bell, a half-caste whose name had been on the previous roll, but was not on last election, gave evidence concerning the making of enquiries relating to voting by declaration.

James William Wallace Seymour, farmer, Otorohanga, said he was scrutineer at Otorohanga fir Mr Jennings. Was in the company of Mr F.

O. R. Phillips, scrutineer for Mr Wilson. Did not. agree with the evidence of Messrs McDonald and Phillips with regard to overcrowding at Otorohanga. Between 3 and 4 o'clock, when the crowd was greatest witness counted the number on the stage. There were seven people in front of thed;anle and two others voting. Witness said to Phillipa they were getting a bit thick, and asked him if he should object. Mr Phillips said no, the returning officer could stop them if he liked. The poll waß well carried out. To Mr Johnston: Witness did not see voting papers being passed up to be put in the boxes. John Patterson, labourer, Marokopa, Baid he was put on the roll by Mr Young, who made him a promise if he voted for Mr Jenninga they would get a hotel at Te Kuiti in twelve months. James Burns Young, land agent, Te Kuiti, said he worked prior to the election on behalf of the License party. Personally, he had always been soundly Liberal. No request was made to him to act for Mr Jennings. Had once wired to Mr Jennings asking him to have forma sent. The registrar's office was then at Waitara. Witness had no connection with Mr Jennings further than that he was a keen supporter of the party of Which Mr Jennings belonged. Witness was a member of the Liberal League. Witness toured the Northern part of the district on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers' Association. The object whs to enroll people favorable to license. He got about 200 names. Witness also Went to Ohura, his expenses being paid by the Licensed Victuallers' Association. Mr Howarth accompanied him on the trip. Tho evidence given by the Julls to the effect that signatures had been made by tfiem and attested by witnesa without him having seen them s'ign was correct. Witness explained that he gave the forms to Jull junr. to have signed by his parents. The forms were brought back by Jull junr. duly signed and witness took his word that they were correctly signed. Questioned as to the number oE forms signed by him as witness prior to the claimant's signature being attached, witness said the outside number would be sixteen to twenty. Mr Justice Cooper: Did you make a practice of it.

Witness: Only when I knew the people well. Me Schramm's evidence aa to having seen post dated claims in witness' office was not true. At the latter part of the campaign witness registered many claims by post owing to complaints received from persons whose names had not been enrolled. Witness was marshalling motor cara at election on behal? of the Liquor party. Witnesß had been Bpoken to by Mr Jennings about not wishing to be associated with witness in consequence of the liquor association. Cross-examined by Mr Johnston: Witness was a suporter of the Liberal party. Mr Aldridge, the Liberal organiser, was frequently ii Witness' office. Witnesß was appointed by thß Licensed: Victuallers' Association about July 'or August. Witness had probably plaecd about 600 names on the roll. Witness did not get fullblooded Maoris to sign claim forms to his knowledge. Did not remember Mr Wall coming to him regarding a truce between the parties. Sach had not transpired. Witness had, he thought, put two of the Julls' names on the roll.. The Tomlins were placed on the roll in the same manner. Witness admitted having sent out claim forme with letter asking that forms should be signed and returned to him. The claim signed by Dement at Marokopa was Higned in witness' presence. Witness admitted sending out, about twenty enrolment forms accompanied by letter with his signature attached. He did not see Mrs Lawrie sign. Her husband brought the elaim back to witness' office with his wife's signature on the form. Witness knew the Rev. Mr Beattie and Mrs Beattie. He did not know when they signed the;r claims that they had not been twelve months in New Zealand. He knew they had been in Te Kuiti ten months. Even if Mr Beattie swore that he had told witness he had not been twelve months in New Zealand witness would say the same. The fact that a number of claimants for enrolment could not be found by post was doubtless due to the fact that many of the men were bushfallers and were frequently changing their address. Witness wan not connected'in any way with Mr Jennings' committee. He was a member of the Liberal and Labour League. He toured the Ohura with Mr Howßrth, but did not address any meetings. Mr Jennings wished to be disassociated from witness presumably on account of witness' connection with the Licensed Vituallers' Association. Witness saw Mr Aldridge sign his claim for enrolment. Only a few claims were taken by husbands to get their wife's signature. He adhered to the statement that not more than twßnty claims went in without claimant's signature. Evidence was given by Peter Wilkie and Tuheka, motor car proprietors, that they were engaged by Mr Young on election day. The former witness stated Mr Young engaged him on behalf of the Liquor party. Young did not say in whose interest he was running his car. Alfred Brooks, commercial traveller, said he was acting as representative of the Licensed Victuallers' Association in the Taumarunui electorate. He appointed Mr. Young as agent. He I told a representative of. the Reform party that their agent was to disassociate himself from any political party. He engaged two motor cars from Free and Co. for election day. Mr Young had power to engage cars if needed. The cars were under Young's control for the day. Witness went on a tour with Mr Young for five days through thß Northern end of the district. Young acted as guide and for securing enrolments, while witness organised. They took several claims for enrolment on the tour. Secured from 150 I enrolments upwards. He had seen the claims properly signed and witnessed. The Licensed Victuallers' Association

paid Young's expenses to the Ohura. Could not say if the greater number of settlers were on the roll. Mr Young was dismissed some three weeks hefore the election owing to taking too much whisky. Witness' superiors did not know Young was drinking. The statement that Young was dismissed was on his own initiative.

Thomas Buchanan, accountant, Waitara, waa for 14 years returning officer for this electorate, until June 30tb, 1914. He came over at Mr Jennings' requeat to act bb scrutineer at the recount. He arrived on Monday morning, December 14th, 1914, at about 10 o'clock. He was introduced to Mr Schramm, and asked to relieve Mr Walsh, who was acting for Mr Jennings. Mr Schramm said he could not allow witness to act as the recount had started. Mr Schramm and Mr Jennings left me, and on Mr Jennings' return witness assured Mr Jennings there was no provision in tha Act for an acting scrutineer. Mr Jennings could hardly have had time to enter the room where the recount was proceeding more than once. From witness' experience it is fairly common for deputy returning officers to fail to mark off votes cast from the roll.

Olof Pettersen, miner, at Mahirakau, said he was a naturalised British subject. He was never an expressman in Auckland.

Athol Feilding Howarth, solicitor, and president of the Te Kuiti branch of the New Zealand Liberal and Progressive League, said he did not know it Mr Jennings was a member of the institution. Mr Young was a nismber. Tha branch was a permanent inetitution established in Te Kuiti. It had to decide between Mr Scholea and Mr Jenningß as candidate. Mr Jennings never attended any of the meetings. Mr Jennings had no say in conducting the businesß of the branch. The tent at the Municipal booth was erected on witness' instructions. The Bign "Jennings' Committee Room" was placed on the tent by witness' instructions. He knew of no connection between Mr and Mr Jennings. He remembered a letter from Mr Jennings the contents of which practically consisted of drawing attention to Young's connection with the Trade, and asking witness to disassociate Young from supporting Mr Jennings. Young did not continuously remain in the tent. The League was naturally wo'rking in the interest of Mr Jennings. The tent was considered aa the headquarters of the Jennings party. He did not remember Mr Jennings mentioning Young's name from the lorry on the night of the election.

Upon resuming in the afternoon, Mr Justice Chapman said they wanted an explanation of the coming in of the twenty blank claimß which had been attested. Mr Finlay said they could agree on the point. He and Mr Johnston would go into the matter and reduce it to writing.

Mr Justice Cooper said the marking off of the rolls from the counter-foils would probably go on till next week. They should agree that the Work should go on in the absence of the judges. Mr Terry was an officer of the Court, and had been instructed to remain in charge of the work until it was completed. The report would be forwarded to the judges, and counsel would have the liberty to inspect the marked roll. The further hearing would be nominally adjourned till the 22nd March, and thereafter from day to dfjy until the cases were heard. Upon the judgment being delivered on the technicalities, a date would be fixed for the addresses of counsel in the present case. Liberty was reserved to both counsel to call further evidence as to anything as arising out of the examination of the counter-foils now being conducted. Similar leave given to either party to. apply to the Court for a scrutiny or for a recount. Mr Finlay thanked their Honors for the marked patience and consideration extended to counsel during the hearing of the case. Mr Justice Cooper expressed pleasure at the manner in which counsel on both sides had conducted their case, and the ability displayed by them. A further gratifying feature was the absence of bitterness.