EAST COAST ELECTION.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 186, 18 July 1884, Page 2

EAST COAST ELECTION.

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION. REES V. LOCKE. (Continued from our last.) On resuming at 2 p,m. E. P. Paviour deposed—l was the person mentioned in the Electoral roll. I was at Ormond on the 16th June, and was employed in the polling booth as an unpaid scrutineer for Mr. Locke. I remember seeing Mr, Ratcliffe prior to the election. About the beginning of May I told Mr. Ratcliffe that many names who were not on the roll, and there was a chance of getting them. Mr. Ratcliffe said, be very careful to obtain all the names you possibly can, and at the same time influence no votes, whoever they may be for, and he thought he would be able to remunerate me for my trouble at a reasonable price. I did that. It took me about six weeks to get these names. I put in a claim for £8 10s. and I received it. That is as far as I can recollect. The £8 10s. included the whole of my expenses. _ I received it in different amounts. I did not keep any memorandum of payments. I valued the work at £8 10s. I came at that by the time it took me, and horse hire. The latter came to about £2 10s or £3. lam certain I received no more than £8 10s. I have had a conversation with Mr. Locke since the subpeen a wus served. That was yesterday. I asked him what the subpoena meant. He replied, “ I don’t know go and ask Rees.” That was all that took place. I don’t know who appointed me scrutineer for Mr. Locke. I suppose someone appointed mo. I acted as unpaid scrutineer, because I received a paper asking me to do so. I don’t know who the paper was from. I have not got the letter. The paper appointing me scrutineer, was returned by the returning officer. I do not know who was acting for Mr. Locke outside the booth on the day of the poll. I did not apply to Mr. Ratcliffe for the L 8 10s. as Mr. Locke’s agent, but merely as an agent. At the time I applied I did not know Mr. Ratcliffe was acting as agent for Mr. Locke. I never knew I was being paid with Mr. Locke’s money. Mr. McKay did not bring me my appointment as scrutineer. I cannot tell who signed the appointment. I cannot tell who signed the letter which came with the appointment. I was asked to act as scrutineer by Mr. Skillicorn. Nothing was then said as to my acting for payment or non-payment. I cannot tell when I received the last payment of the L 8 10s. It was during the last week in June. It was after that when Mr. Skillicorn spoke to me about acting as scrutineer.

W. Cooper deposed—l am a publican at Waerenga-a-hika. I remember Mr. Locke’s last meeting there. I saw Mr. Locke there after the meeting. Mr. Locke came to my house. Mr. Locke did not order any liquor. I don’t remember who came with him. Capt. Ferris and Mr. Murchie were also at the hotel. Captain Ferris shouted, as he always does when he comes there. He shouted for some, but I don’t know whether he did for everybody. All the shouts were paid for. I cannot say to what extent he shouted. I did not on that evening refuse to take any money from any person, stating that the drinks were paid for. I have no accounts in my books against Mr. Locke, Mr. Murchie, or Captain Ferris, up to and including the 16th of June. No refreshments were supplied to anybody which were not paid for, and which do not appear in my books. I did not receive any cheque in connection with this night. There was a small supper given that night. I know a man named Saddler. I did not refuse his money which he tendered for drinks. I did not receive any money from Mr. Locke on that night or afterwards. I have no books other than the two I produce. S. Stevenson deposed—l am a stable keeper I took over the stables on the 9th of last month. No brakes or cabs were sent out to any political meetings. I think Mr. Boylan or Mr. Ward had a cab. There would not have been entries against Mr. Locke only I told them to be charged to other parties.

D. Murchie was called and asked who was to pay his expenses, but his Worship said he could not give him any satisfaction, and he deposed—l am a storekeeper at Makaraka. I was not a member of Mr. Locke’s committee. I attended his committee meetings twice, as a visitor. No one invited me to attend. I knew there was a meeting and I went. I received no intimation for my attendance. I did not go with Mr. Locke to any of his meetings. I attended a good many of his meetings. I canvassed for Mr. Locke. After the Waerenga-a-hika meeting I was in Cooper’s Hotel, though not in company with Messrs. Locke and Ferris. I walked down from the meeting with Mr. Locke. Nothing was then said about my going over to Dinan’s Hotel. I did go over to Dinan’s. I could not say with whom. Captain Ferris was not with me, though I saw him in the hotel afterwards. I shouted at the hotel, about twice. Nearly all the parties present were my customers. I was doing anything I could for Mr. Locke in the election. I did not get paid for canvassing. I had no business conversations with Mr. Locke. I told Mr, Dinan to give all the people present drinks on my account. I did not give any instructions to him on the polling day, I shouted there on the polling day, but that had nothing to do with the election. I still owe the amount for drinks at Dinan’s. I don’t know if there are any other accounts due by me at any other hotels for drinks. I have no recollection of any. To Mr. Brassey—Whatever I done for Mr. Locke was done voluntary, and not at his request, and at my own expense. John Brodie deposed—l was not canvassing for Mr. Locke during the late election. I applied to Mr. Ratcliffe for some work. He said it was not required. I spoke to Captain Ferris first, and he referred me to Mr. Ratcliffe, whom I saw. I have seen Mr. Locke several times. I spoke to Mr. Locke on the matter, and he referred me to Mr. Ratcliffe. I did no work for Mr. Locke in relation to the election.

S. M. Wilson deposed—l am an hotel-keeper in Gisborne. No cabs were hired by Mr. Locke on or before the polling day. Some of my traps went to Mr. Locke’s meetings. They were not specially hired. Each passenger had to pay for himself. I believe in getting the cash when I can. On the polling day two of my cabs were running free. I had no cabs running for hire on the day of the poll, or at any of the candidates’ meetings. Every passenger had to pay their fare each way. Sometimes I received the fares and sometimes tlie driver. I saw Mr. Locke on the day of the poll. Mr. Locke was at the Albion Hotel on the night of the poll. That is his residence when he is in Gisborne. No liquor was supplied to Mr. Locke on that evening. No large quantity of liquor was supplied by Mr. Locke’s order on the day of the election to any persons. The Court then adjourned until 7 p.m.

Pelham E. Richardson deposed—l live at Makaraka. During the late election I was canvassing for Mr. Locke. I did not have any conversation with Mr. Locke about the matter within three months. I had a conversation with him about a year ago. Mr. Locke then spoke about my opposing him at the last election, and asked me if I would go for him this election, and I said “ yes.” Mr. Locke knew I opposed him at the previous election. Mr. Locke did not know my position with regard to Captain Porter, whom I supported at the last election. I have had conversations with Mr. Locke since, but not with reference to my services as canvasser. Mr. Locke knew I was canvassing for him. I don’t know how he knew it. I was not a member of Mr. Locke’s committee. I had no conversation with Mr. Locke as to any remuneration. I did not expect any remuneration, I never have expected any remuneration. I have not stated on several occasions that I did expect anything. Nor have I stated that I expected to make more out of this election than out of the lust. 11. Morse deposed—l am an hotelkeeper at Matawhero. In the month of June I was living at Karaka. I kept the Rangatira hotel

there, I remember Mr. Locke going there to hold a meeting. There was no meeting as there was no one present. Mr. Ferris, Mr. Skillicorn,, and . Wallace were with him. He was there about an hour, Mr, Locke returned the same night. The people did net assemble after Mr. Locke had arrived. Had no conversation, other than business matters, with Mr. Locke or Mr. Ferris, about the election. Before Mr. Locke’s arrival he had not received any communication from Mr. Locke, Mr. Ratcliffe, or any of his committee. Had no conversation at that time any other time with Mr. Locke or any of his friends about providing refreshments. After the 16th (tlie polling day) had no account against Mr. Locke or Mr. Ferris, or any understanding that he was to be paid for anything. Mr. Locke’s party had no entertainment ether than their lunch at his house. Mr. Locke paid for the lunch. The meeting would have been held in a whare some little distance from his house belonging to Mr. Burgess. Was not aware that Mr. Locke was to hold a meeting before he came up. Mr. Locke gave him a cheque for L2 and he gave him the change. The lunch cost about 13s, to 15s.

Mr. Rees drew attention to the fact that there was no receipt for Porter and Croft's advertisement.

Mr. Brassey said he would see it furnished, Henry Cannon was called. The witness asked whether he was to be allowed his expenses. His Worship said he could not allow them. The witness then went on to say that it was a great hardship when Mr. Rees asked that the witness be stopped and sworn. Witness deposed he remembered Captain Ferris coming to his hotel three times. He served him with drinks. Could not say how many. There might have been five or six on the first occasion, perhaps eight or ten on the second. On the third perhaps twenty. Should say those were the only times in the month of June. Have an account against Captain Ferris for, I think, £1 Is. I remember the 16th the, polling day. A part of the accounts was for drinks supplied on that night. Saw Captain Ferris when he came in from Ormond. Did not remember any allusion being made to the polling at Ormond. That was the third occasion I spoke of. Captain Ferris did not during the month of June, up to the 16th, repeatedly shout for persons—not in my presence. Remember seeing Mr. Locke prior to his going to Tologa Bay. I proposed to go with him before he went to the Wairoa. I went with him to Tologa. Another man named Rice went also. We met you on the road. Mr. Rice overtook us on the second beach. Did not know that Captain Ferris was working for Mr. Locke, excepting as I was, supporting him. Mr. Brassey—Do you mean holding him up?

Witness—Yes; and [we did hold him up. I never billed Mr. Ferris for the £1 Is., nor acquainted him with the fact. lam not in the habit of sticking a respectable person up for an ordinary account. Some persons I would not trust.

Mr. Rees—Are you not aware that you nearly run the risk of loosing your license for serving liquor on the election day. Witness—No I am not aware of it. Mr. Rees—Well, it is so, so I would advise you to give a little more attention to the matter. Witness—l am prepared to abide by that. Witness continued—Did not know that Mr. Ferris was working for Mr. Locke, no more than seeing him in his company, and driving him out. Peter Searles was called—Witness said to Mr. Rees, I want you to give direct question. That is all I want.

Mr. Rees—What is your name ? Witness—Who, (laughter). Witness continued—lam a market gardener. Mr. Rees—During the election were you canvassing for Mr. Locke ? Witness—What do you mean by the word ? Mr. Rees—Did you ask people to vote for Mr. Locke ?

Witness—No, not anyone. I spent no money on the election. Of course I spent money during the election. Many a drink I paid for myself. Could not exactly say how much I spent. Could not say to a farthing. (Laughter). Could not say to £l, £2, or £lO. (Laughter). I spent money and no mistake about that. (Laughter), Could give no idea whatever. I have stated I have spent money but not the exact sum. Have not stated £ll.

Mr. Rees—How much did you state yor had spent.

Witness—l have answered that before. Don’t you ask me a question twice. (Laughter.) The Magistrate here interposed and told witness to answer the question. Had received the money he spent as from his pension and rent. Did not receive any money or promise of any money, from any person in connection with the election. It was all my own money. To Mr. Brassey—There was nothing peculiar about my spending money last month from any other month. lam always at it. (Laughter.) Mr. Rees said by to-morrow he would be able to point uut the different sections, and the law under which the case was laid, and Mr. Brassey would be able to go through the evidence. He thought they could get through the case in an hour or an hour and a-half. His Worships said he would prefer that course, and Jnoon to-morrow was fixed for legal argument. THIS DAY—FRIDAY. The case was again called on at 12 o’clock noon, when Mr. Rees said that some little difficulty was sure to arise in an important case as to the wording of the Act. He then quoted many paragraphs. Mr. Brassey contended that Mr. Rees had no business to open the case, as he was the prosecutor, Mr. Rees said this objection was rather late. He should have made it at an earlier stage. He argued that he was entitled to be considered as a professional man, as well as a prosecutor. Mr. Brassey pointed out that if a man was a prosecutor he could not be considered as a professional man, and stated that a counsel was not allowed to appear in the wig and gown if a prosecutor. Mr. Rees said he bad appeared in cases tn Wellington, Auckland and Gisborne as prosecutor, and wore his wig and gown, and he was surprised to hear such a thing from Mr. Brassey. Mr. Brassey said he never heard such a preposterous thing. Mr. Rees said Mr. Brassey was there only on sufferance. He then pointed to the late Paramata case. Mr. Brassey said Mr, Rees was not the defendant in that case. A. long argument as to cases in point was then gone into, and Mr. Brassey demanded authority for such precedent. A rush was here made for law books, and the pile before Mr. Rees was further increased. Mr. Rees wished to know whether Mr. Brassey would produce any evidence, but the latter gentleman declined to decide until a further stage of the proceedings. The Bench said Mr. Rees had better go on with his argument.

Mr. Rees then called attention to paragraph 179-197 of Johnson in support of a commital. He would show the duty of justices. Mr. Brassey objected to Mr. Rees showing the duty of justices. He had no right to import anything like that. Mr. Rees made a great howl of “ his duty to the public.” Tiie public had nothing to do with this, and the Magistrate could shut the doors and hear

the case. Mr. Rees did not think the Court would do this. He then referred to paragraph 757 of Johnson, and quoted from tlie same. He would point out to the Bench that the evidence disclosed treating according to the meaning of the Act. Treating was defined by Wordsworth pp. 153, constituting the offence by common or Statute law. The treating must be by either the candidate or his agents, and then the candidates seat must be vacated. There was no evidence that Mr. Locke treated. He did not wish to strain the law. The evidence was conclusive that Mr. Locke’s agents had been guilty of treating, and Mr. Locke was responsible. To show this he would take the case of Regina v. Leatluun, and Law Journals, <Vc. Tlie law

was more stringent in criminal cases than in civil ones. The principal was, in such cases, more liable than in civil ones. The first question as to the agency was whether the agency could be established by canvassing for the member. He would prove that canvassing was sufficient to constitute an agency. He would now prove that being a member of

the committee and canvassing constituted an agency. (Mr. Rees quoted numerous authorities in support of these assertions). Thd treating was complete by the supply of diink, if a:.y agent during the election—before, at, or after the election—was guilty of treating, then the principal was guiltv and responsible for the acts of his agent. If the action was proved, the law would imply the intention. It was usual to suppose that if a man killed another it was done in malice aforethought. (Taylor, par. 68, 131, and 132.) The burden of disproval rested with the accused. Whether drinks were given either before or after the day of the poll was all the same, and const!* luted an offence against the law. A jury was to be the judge as to intent. When the law had once been broken it remained with the accused to show that there was no unlaw; ful intent. If there was any doubt as to the expenditure being over the L 25 allowed it must go before another court and that one could not deal with it. If there was any dispute or question as to any sum outside, or supposed to be outside that sum, then the matter must go to a jury. Mr. Brassey showed that Mr. Rees had gone through all this in opening his case, and he must object to this waste of time. The Bench would like to hear all the law on the subject, with a view of assisting him to arrive at a decision.

Mr. Rees said he had disposed of treating, and now he would go to the employment of Mr. McKay. (The Act was here read.) He submitted that this was in contravention to the Act. No voter could be employed in any paid capacity. A scrutineer or any othef person employed could not vote. If one be employed fifty may be employed, and even the whole electorate. Everything the agent did the candidate was responsible for. McKay was an elector, and was employed and paid. This was in direct violation of the law. The next case was that of Mr. Browne. If a member handed over any money to his agents then all money expended was for the purpose of obtaining the return of the member. He submitted that the case must go to another tribunal.

Mr. Brassey said the case required great consideration. If the Magistrate thought the evidence sufficient then it was his duty to commit, but if not to dismiss. This simply was the law. As to treating, Mr. Rees had stated that if the treating took place after the Poll closed it was illegal. But he would say that such treating was not within the meaning of the Act. It was only on the day of poll, and during the voting hours that treating was illegal. If Mr. Ferris or others had even ruined themselves after the polling houw it was nobody’s business. The case had been nothing but a fishing one, and there had not been one tittle of evidence to show that anything would warrant the charge. Numbers of people had been brought down from all parts of the country for the sole purpose of being questioned for the purpose of getting up a case. He should not produce any witnesses because he could not see any single thing to be answered. There was not one tittle of evidence to show that any one had treated a voter, If this was not proved, how could it be said that it was done for bribery. Mr. Ferris might have shouted for a regiment of soldiers, but that would not affect the elections. Mr. Rees had said that a man might be charged with robbery but found guilty of murder; but such was not the case. A fresh indictmentjwould have to be laid, and this was always done. To constitute treating it must be shown that the man treated was an elector.

After a short summing up the Bench decided that there was no case whatever to go to a superior court, and it would therefore be dismissed.