EAST COAST ELECTION.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 184, 16 July 1884, Page 2

EAST COAST ELECTION.

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION. REES V. LOCKE. The above case came on for hearing at the Resident Magistrates Court this morning, before J. Booth Esq. R.M. The Court room was crowded with spectators, Mr. Brassey appeared on behalf of Mr. Locke, whilst Mr. Rees conducted his own case. The following is the indictment: —“ The information and complaint of William Lee Rees, of Gisborne, Barrister-at-Law, taken upon oath this 7th day of July, 1884, before me, James Booth, Esquire, one of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace in and for the said Colony, who saith that he hath just cause to suspect and doth suspect that Samuel Locke, of Gisborne, a Justice of the Peace, in and for the Colony of New Zealand, did, during the months of May and June, now last past, in the said Colony of New Zealand, for the purpose of promoting the election of him, the said Samuel Locke, he then being a candidate at an election then proceeding for the return of a member, for the East Coast Electoral District, to the House of Representatives of New Zealand, pay, or contract for the payment, of moneys outside and beyond the exceptions authorised by the first and second schedules of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, beyond the sum of twentyfive pounds, the same being an indictable offence.”

Mr. Rees asked that all witnesses in the case be ordered out of Court, which was accordingly done, much to their annoyance. Mr, Rees then opened the case, saying that the present charge was brought under the 13th section of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1881. Subsection (d) of that Act, and also section 2, provided that no payment or contract for jmyment should be made for the purpose of securing the election of a candidate. The payment or contract for payment was the offence which was set out. The matter which brought it within that offence was the paying or contracting to pay forihe election in anyway whatever, excepting within the boundaries of the two schedules of the Act, anything beyond the boundaries of the two schedules was ftn infringement of the Act, and an illegal practice. The first schedule contained the lists of persons who might be legally employed for payment during an election. There were two subsections in it, one of which provided that a scrutineer for each ballot box, or polling place, who may or may not be an elector, might be paid. This was the only way in which an elector could be retained for payment, and on the condition that he be paid he cannot record his vote. He might state that for centuries in England, and of course the colonies and America, they had been hedging round as strictly as possible not to allow influence to be given in an election, and not to allow it to be influenced in any way by wrong doing through candidates bringing undue influence and pressure to bear by monetary means or promises of preferment. They also deal with treating, and are trying to make that also an offence. He then went on at great length, into the various acts having reference to this charge, both of New Zealand and of England, and explain" their full meaning. The information before the Court, was for the breach of the thirteenth section, and the payment in respect to any matter whatever in connection with the election that had been made by Mr. Locke, or contract for payment outside and beyond the amounts specified in the schedule, and outside and beyond the £25 allowed for miscellaneous matters. There was now power in the Act for any elector to act as a paid agent, for the only way in which an elector could be employed in the service of any candidate was as scrutineer, and then he must not vote. The reason for this is obvious, because the electors may have a better personal knowledge of the district, &c., than an outsider. Therefore the law says you may employ an elector for that purpose, but he cannot interfere in the election, and he must see that the proper persons only vote. Not only did the twelfth section make that provision, but also the fourth. There was a great difference on this point, between the English law, and the New Zealand law, though he was not prepared to say it was a good one, yet he thought the House would have been wiser to have been guided by the English Parliament, than do as it had done. The English Act was entirely different on the matter, it provided for what ought to be provided, that not only could agents be employed, and for payment, but that those agents should keep absolutely true accounts of any money which might be paid through those agents and hand them in immediately after the election. That was not provided in the New Zealand Acts, which should be. Now a candidate can go to the extent of £25 for miscellaneous expenses and no more. Necessarily in cases like this the majority of the evidence must come from those who to some extent had been the recipients of promises of employment or some favor, and no doubt he would have to put certain questions for the elucidation of the real facts upon which only the Court could judge as to the liability of the party proceeded against. With all that he dared say they would be able to keep from importing any undue haste and personal feeling, and that they would be able to get at the whole facts easily so that a full and impartial judgment could be given by the Court. He trusted that the same arguments would be adduced and the same good feeling which he had attempted to show from the first would continue.

Mr. Brassey said before his friend proceeded further, he wished to make an objection, which he had intended to make before. He objected to the information, which was a general statment alleged against Mr. Locke, that he did certain things in contravention of th? sections of the Act. He submitted to the court that there might be several informations laid in this same matter, but the Act says you cannot allow more than one charge in more than one information, but he submitted they were entitled to know for what they were brought there, and what they had to answer. They were called to answer nothing specific. He did not know whether Mr. Rees was laying this under two sections of the Act, on only one, the thirteenth. They were entitled to know everything from the information (but that was indefinite) in order to get them to refute the charge. They could not subpama witnesses because they did not know what to subpoena them for. The sixth subsection provided in respect to miscellaneous expenses, that a sum not exceeding £25 shall be expected. That amount was allowed to a candidate, and if one pound is expended over the £25, it was illegal, and he (the candidate) was liable to one specific offe.ice, but that was not so in the information. The information is a broad statement, and simply a searching enquiry. How did Mr. Rees know of his own knowledge that Mr. Locke expended more than £25 ? Could he say so on oath ? He undertook to say he could not. There was an allegation that £25 and something beyond had been expended by the defendant, which was illegal. But that was indefinite, and there should be some specfic offence against them. He had no desire to buke the matter, he did not want the information thrown out. He said “ Give us the information, and let us know everything, and then we’will be able to meet you.” How was it possible that Mr. Locke could issue subpcenas, when not knowing the charge, he would be at a loss who to subpoena. Mr. Locke wanted to court the enquiry, but in doing so lie (Mr. Locke) wanted to know the allegations against him. If it could be shown that Sir. Locke has paid outside the miscellaneous matters, and with the intention of doing so, then the Magistrate would send it to a jury for trial. Mr. Rees said that the offence could not be brought specifically. If any sum over the £25 was expended then an offence was committed. Mr. Brassey said the sub-section six was very plain and clear. It must be for an offence committed under the Act, but it was not shown in the information that any offence had been committed. The plaintiff

hud made a broad sweeping statement, but he did not state what it was for. Mr. Rees again said he could not specify thn charge, for supposing he alleged that there was one payment of LIO above the I 25, Mr. Locke would then bay, “ You will have to prove the L 25, and 'hen the Llo.’* Ji he allowed another distinct information for each offence they would say, “ That is not outside the L 25. You must prove that.” Therefore his Worship would see it was impossible to specify the offence. His Worship said after Mr. Rees’ explanation, he did not see how the information could be laid in any other way. It seemed hard to bring a man up, and not to sapr specifically what he was charged with, but it evidently could not bo helped. There seemed to bo two offences, of pay and contract to pay. Was it not necessary to disclose something i the information ? Mr. Rocs replied, yes, that he (the defends nt) had paid £25. Mr. Brassey asked, what was the excess of the £25 for ? Were they to (ook upon it as miscellaneous expenses, or fbfr offences under the Act ? He could not tell, and that was iheir position.

Mr, D. Johnstone (called and examined by Mr. Rces)—l am the returning officer for this district. I remember the election in June last, and I returned the writs for the same, properly endorsed. Mr. Brassey here claimed the production of the writs, or the authority. No notice had been given Mr. Johnstone to produce the writs.

Mr. Rees held that public and private documents were different. The writs were in the custody of the House. Secondary evidence was admissable.

Various authorities were now quoted, and Mr. Brassey gave a case in point where voting papers were obtained in a late case. The Bench declined to take secondary evidence until it was shown that the writ could not be produced. Mr. Rees never heard of such a thing, and would ask the Court to issue a suhpeena for the Clerk of the Writs. He now produced the Gazette containing the notice of Mr. Locke’s election.

The Bench accepted this as sufficient evidence of Mr. Locke’s having been a candidate. The Gazette was an official document; but the Court would take notice of Mr. Brassey’s objection. Mr. Johnstone, (examination continued): The Gazette notice produced is the notice of that return. 1 know Mr. Locke personally and recognise him in Court as being the Mr. Locke who was elected.

Mr. James Brown (on entering the box the witness asked who was to pay his expenses, Laughter): I know Mr. 8. Locke and had some conversation with him prior to the election then pending. It was in my office at the time when Mr. McDonald had just gone Home. It was before the issue of the writs. When Mr. 8. Locke saw me the subject of his candidature was brought up, and I said “ I was agent or clerk for you at the last election, but I cannot act in this, as I am too old to knock about the country, and it does not do a man’s business any good. I would recommend a young fellow like Mr. Ratcliffe.” Mr. Locke said he desired the election to be conducted strictly fair, and in accordance with the Act. He had only lost the last time by 15 or 17 votes, and had done nothing to lose the confidence of the electors. He believed he would be elected against allcomers. I said any help I can give you from my past experience you shall have it, but I will not receive any recompense. I have spent some small sums for Mr. Locke for some stationery and Mr. Locke has bought a guinea ticket in the art union. I knew that Mr. Ratcliffe was the agent. I was on Mr. Locke’s committee. I know Mr. H. McKay. He was not employed by Mr. Locke, but was employed by Mr. Ratcliffe to address some envelopes. I do not know of the employment of any other person* I have not the slightest idea what Mr. McKay was paid. I know Capt. Ferris* I do not know that he was employed in any way. He only assisted by canvassing fof votes. I know Mr, Murchie. Mr. Ferris attended some committee meetings, but I cannot say whether Mr. Murchie did. Was a clerk for payment last time, but acted as a friend this time. [The Court then adjourned until 2 o’clock.] On again resuming—

W. Ratcliffe deposed—l am a Commission Agent in Gisborne, in partnership with Mr. C. W. Ferris. 1 remember the month of May, when Mr. McDonald was expected to go Home, and some doubt existed as to his resignation. I saw Mr. Locke about that time—the time when it was thought Sir Julius Vogel was coming here. He did not come to me and say that Mr. Browne referred him to me. I have previously had conversations with Locke on election matters. On one occasion Mr. Locke came to me about the beginning of May near my plade of business. I think he said it was his intention to contest the scat, and he asked me if I would have any objection to do the clerical work for him, as I had done that work for Mr. McDonald at the previous elections. I said I should be very happy to do anything I could for him. That is all that took placdi He did not tell me what to do. I suppose he left that for my own judgment. It was not expressed as to what I should do. It was decided to form a committee, which I was to manage, and get an address written and send around the district. I was to make arrangements for holding meetings in the various parts of the district. I don’t know of anything outside of that which I was expected to do. I was not to see persons in order to arrange with them to act in various localities, with one exception—with regard jto Mr. Paviour, of Ormond, and he said he knew of a number of people inland whom he could get put on the roll, and he would like to have the dbing of it. I told him that if he thought he could do so I would not mind allowing him something for his trouble. He went round the country and did the work. I think I gave him £8 for his trouble in the mutter. I have not kept any books of the disbursements. I have only made one or two memos, which I have not got here. I produce a few receipts of money which I have paid. I destroyed all the memos, that I had some time ago—about a fortnight ago. I am certain of that. I mentioned to Mr. Locke about the disbursements, and he gave me a cheque to cover the amount. Therefore 7 destroyed the memos. I destroyed them when I got the cheque. Mr. Locke did not know that I had done so. I destroyed them because Mr. Locke was satisfied with them and I had no further use for them. The amount of the cheque was £IOO. The receipts I produced were included in the cheque, which amount to about £4O. There are two accounts which I have not yet paid. I have no vouchers for the other payments. The payment of £8 to Mr. Paviour was out of the £IOO cheque. I employed Mr. Hy. McKay to do some clerical work in connection with the issuing of the circulars referred to. He got £3, and there is a balance due to him of £2. I have paid for telegrams, stamps on circulars, electoral rolls, &c. The stamps came to over £7. I got the cheque I think the day he went to Wellington. I head you make a statement on the day of the poll to the effect that you would bring this charge, but I did not believe it. I burned those papers without communicating with Mr. Locke at all. I showed Mr. Locke a memorandum of the expenditure. The electoral rolls came to over £3. The telegrams came to about £5. There were no other items I paid for out of the cheque. The printing account £37, and Large and Townley’s account £4, will have to be by another cheque from Mr. Locke. The £37 account was not to be included in the £IOO. The £IOO was to go towards expenses incurred in the election. The £IOO cheque was only on account, as more arcounts were to come in and I couid not tell the exact amount I would require, There is only one account to come in, that I know of. I received a sum fiom Mr. Locke before the £IOO, viz., £lO. Those were the only amounts that I received from him far as I can recollect. I did not keep any account of these things because I did not think it was necessary. As far as I know my partner has not received anything for Mr. Locke. Nothing has been said between myself and Mr. Locke as to my other payment. No mention or reward whatsoever was ever made. I expected to get something for the work I did, but I left it for him to decide as to the amount of remuneration I should icceive. No sum was ever hinted at in showing the memos to Mr. Locke, I only showed £3 to Mr. McKay, and the whole

amount to I aviour. I had not conversation whatever with Mr. Ferris about canvassing for Locke, I only kept one book, my private diary, with entries of attending committee meetings. &c. I can produce it. I saw no other persons acting for Mr. Locke. I saw ' Mr. Mayo, who is from Wairoa. I heard no conversation between them. Mr. Murchie was a member of the committee. Mr. Ferris was a memler of the committae. [Left Sitting.]