Wanganui Election Inquiry.

Patea Mail, 9 March 1882, Page 3

Wanganui Election Inquiry.

CLOSE of PETITIONER’S CASE.

Chief Justice Prcndergast and Justice Gillies sat in the Supreme Courthouse yesterday at Wanganui, to hear evidence re the election petition by Mr John Ballance, ex-candidate, against the return of Mr W. H, Watt as M.H. R. for Wanganui. Petitioner’s counsel were Mr R. Stout Hon. P. Buckley, and Mr Maclean. The respondent was represented by Mr Fitzherbert. The Court-house was filled with spectators.

OBJECTION TO PETITION

Mr Fitzhcrbert objected that the petition did not disclose particulars ot the alleged cases of bribery and corruption. The third paragraph alleged that John Anderson committed bribery by promising to obtain places of employment for certain persons ; but acts were mentioned in the particulars which had not been set forth in the petition as served on the respondent, Middleton and Askew were mentioned in the petition as having been bribed, but the particulars now filed mentioned other persons. This was enlarging the petition, and was a flaw in the procedure. Justice Gillies thought the petitioner had acted within his right. Although a petition may contain a general allegation of bribery, it is usually sometime before the definite charges leak out.

The Chief Justice said the Court ruled against Mr Fitzherbert on this preliminary objection. PETITIONER’S CASE.

Mr Buckley formally opened the case on which Mr Ballance relied to upset Mr Watt’s election.

Mr Stout then stated at length the facts and circumstances which he would prove in evidence. He would prove bribery, undue influence and intimidation, and also the agency of the parties doing these things. Mr Watt, it appeared, did not “run” the election, but the committee ran Mr Watt. No charge would be brought against Mr Watt, who simply stood by and allowed his supporters to place him at the head of the poll; Mr John Anderson being the mostenergetic, but not the most discreet. The particular charges which would be produced were simply samples of what generally took place at this election, though it had been decided in the Stanmore case that it was only necessary to bring forward a single clearly-proved instance to render the election void. Some of the witnesses brought forward might be treated as hostile, as they might not wish to admit being bribed in the manner alleged. Then as to undue influence, he would simply mention small instances in Home cases which had set an election aside, and compared with which the charges in the present petition were serious. The bribery and intimidation witnesses were so mixed up that it would bo impossible

to separate the branches of evidence, ami as (o formal matters ho presumed the other side would admit them. Mr Fitzherbert would not admit the service of the petition. Mr Stout said it was absurd to dispute the service, after having actually pleaded to it ?

Justice Gillies : If yon wore not served, Mr Fitzherbert, why are you here ?

Mr Fitzherbert said a certain paper no doubt was served, bnt it did not contain a copy of the proper endorsement, in consequence of which the respondent had been put to certain costs in obtaining information. Justice Gillies: That may be a question for the Court as to costs, but cannot interfere with these proceedings.

Mr Fitzherbert then admitted the issue of the writ and the holding of the election.

EVIDENCE OF AGENCY.

Mr Stout first called leading supporters of Mr Watt to prove that Mr J. Andersen did certain acts with the cognisance of the candidate and of his committee.

James Alexander senr was called, but did not answer. John Bennie, merchant, was asked as

to meetings of Mr Watt’s committee. His answers were remarkably indefinite. He seemed to remember .nothing in particular. Mr Stout said if witnesses in Mr Bennie’s position refused to answer, it showed what difficulties had to be met with in bribery cases. Mr Bennie said a few supporters met, in a room. Whether Mr W. Alexander jnnr. took minutes he did not know. Some writing was done, but Mr Alexander might be writing love letters for aught he knew. Could not say he canvassed, but he had a list of voters ticked off, and spoke to some. That was not canvassing. In fact he did not call it anything at all. Justice Gillies : Canvassing frequently means a systematic business.

Mr Stout: I shall show it was very systematic. James Alexander senr. deposed that ho attended meetings of Mr Watt’s committee, Mr Duigan being in the chair. Names on the roll were read out, and each one present took a certain number of the names. Witness took perhaps 20 or 30. On the election day, Anderson was trying to get as many persons up to the poll as possible. Heard that Anderson put up the staging for Mr Watt’s public meeting. Heard that Anderson wont to get a few persons to the show of hands on nomination day. Anderson was certainly at the second meeting of the committee.

Joseph Chadwick senr. said Anderson was in continual talk with himself and others who were promoting the election. Witness continued : Anderson took a very active part, but not more than I did. Mr John .Watt was also very jwtive, and Mr Alexander and his son, and Mr Sharpe, Mr Liffiton, Mr Brechin, Mr Thos. Reid, and others were most active. So also were most of the respectable men in Wanganui. (Loud laughter.) I beaded the list. (Much laughter.) I undertook to see a lot of people, and the other members of the committee did likewise. I was not treasurer, and no money at all transpired. He did not say what he meant by “ transpiring,” Wm. Alexander said : I was secretary of Mr Watt’s committee, of which Mr Duigan was chairman. The first general meeting was called by circular by me, at the suggestion of those present at the preliminary meeting. At the latter meeting (which was held on the day after the nomination! there were present Mr Watt (the candidate), and others* I took down a few minutes, but they were destroyed about 10 days after the election. Mr Anderson came in at the close of the meeting. At the next meeting the rolls were gone over, and several took lists. Mr Watt probably was there, but I cannot say. He was present at one or two meetings. On

the polling clny I drove; about in a trap to bring up voters. Somotimcs Mr Anderson told mo where I was to stop. I do not know any railway workshops, though I believe there are some. I had no conversation with Anderson about the railway men, and I do not know if they voted. I voted myself, and that is the only man Ido know of. (Laughter.) I cannot say Anderson was more active on Mr Watt’s behalf than others, but he was one of the most active. When we were in the buggy, Anderson brought up a man named Potto. Mr Stout said that he should now call witnesses who would speak both as to agency and bribery and corruption. Mr Fitzherbert asked whether agency should not first be clearly shown before the charges were gone into. Mr Stout was at a loss to conceive what stronger evidence of agency could bo given than had been shown. He had other witnesses, and he could also adduce cases to show that far less evidence than had already been adduced had been held sufficient. His Honor said the Court saw no reason why the petitioners should not proceed with their case in their own way.

BRIBERY CHARGES

Boswell Robert Middleton, a clerk out of employ, and a voter, deposed that a man named Askew brought a message to him from Mr J. Anderson, the day before the election. Mr Anderson on election day asked him to vote for Watt, and said “ Yon know the message Askew brought ?” Witness said : Yes. I told Anderson that Askew told me that if 1 would vote for Mr Watt, and use my influence with the discharged soldiers, he (Anderson) would give me his book-keeping to do, and get me other work besides. I was not then in work. Anderson said, “ That’s all right; come in and have a liquor.” We went in and Mr Anderson paid for the drinks.

Witness was cross-examined to show he had several employments, which he kept only a short time, and that his evidence was not credible. Witness stuck to his story about Anderson’s offer of employment. Mr Fitzherbert asked for whom ho voted.

This was objected to as destroying the secrecy of the ballot. It was disallowed by the Court.

Witness admitted sending the following note to Mr .Anderson :—“ Will you kindly lend me £2 ; I am in difficulties. Will see you to-morro\y,— J. R. Middleton.” This was sent two or three days after the election. I had never borrowed money of him before.

William Askew was next called, but failed to appear, and Mr Stout asked that the attendance of, witnesses might be enforced.

The Chief Justice expressed a doubt as to the power of the Court to enforce the attendance of the witness, unless for the Court’s own purpose.

Christopher Smith Cross deposed : I was chairman of Mr Ballance’s committee, I know Mr John Anderson, and saw him on the Quay several times, when he seemed to be working in connection with the election.

George Friend deposed : I am a discharged soldier. Mr Anderson came to me the day before the election, and said Mr Bryce had sent him to me, but he had not put Mr Bryce’s message on paper. I said Mr Bryce knew nothing about me. Anderson said Mr Bryce was the man who could take my claim up ; I said my claim had been down in Wellington some time. He said, “If Mr Bryce does not take your claim before the House next session, I will guarantee you £5 out of my own pocket.” I said I didn’t want to bother my head any more about it. Several other witnesses were called (whose evidence will appear to-morrow) to prove bribery and intimidation. The petitioner’s case was closed yesterday ; and evidence of a rebutting character is being given to-day.