THE WAERAU PETITEON.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 72, 20 March 1912, Page 5

THE WAERAU PETITEON.

CONVEYANCE OF ELECTORS TO THE POLLS. WERE THE MOTOR-CARS LENT? (Per Press Association.) Blenheim, March 19. The Election Court resumed this morning the hearing of the petition against the election of Richard McCalium as member for Wairau. Michael Hogan, late manager for the McKenzie Carrying Co., said that Mr McOallum gave him plainly to understand that he could not pay for vehicles used on election days nor had Mr McCallum or anyone else since paid for the seven vehicles which had been used. The amount of £3O IGs Gd had been charged up in tlie ledger against Mr Macey, but had been written off. There was not a. secret agreement as to the future payment. Had anyone else wanted the vehicles on election days they , could have had them. Mr Hogan, in reply to Mr Skerrett, said that none of the directors had so far complained to him regarding supplying vehicles free on election days. Ho did not know that the account for hire had been rendered until afterwards. After Mr Macey returned the account, Mr McCallum saw witness and complained that the account was a mistake and reminded witness that he had given him the use of the vehicles free. Witness admitted that the. account, was • a mistake and promised to attend to it. Re-examined: He did not inform the directors of Mr McCallum’s complaint. On the books being referred to a solicitor, the latter advised that they be left unaltered. Witness never suggested that the books should bo altered.

Mr Hogan, replying to Mr Sinclair, said that the reason why he did not report to the directors that lie had given the vehicles to Mr McCallum free was not because he knew that ho would be instantly dismissed, but because the time had not arrived for him to do so. He had not received any promise of payment from Messrs McCallum, Macey, or Bull. He had not approched Mr McCallum or his partner, Mr Mills, in regard to financial support to assist him in taking over the business of the McKenzie Carrying Co. He .had -told both the other candidates at the first ballot that they could.;have 1 traps if they wanted them. The Licensed ictuallers and No-License League both hired traps, for which they paid, i illiani John Roach, foreman at the McKenzie .Carrying, .C 0... stables, said lie made entries of the, vehicles to Mr Macey on Hogan’isj ipsipictiops. |f James F. Michalannay, ' a livery stable-keeper, said that on the day of the second ballot he had hired two vehicles to the McKenzie Carrying Co. Hogan asked for them. Witness charged £2 10s fop one and £1 l()s for the other, but had not yet been paid. Both Hogan and Hum> pxjreys.told him to refer the account to Mr Macey and it would be ’paid later on. He didn’t .send.,it to Macey.

George P. Rogers, solicitor to the Carrying Co., said that he was consulted regarding the hooks during the last week or two.

Counsel for the -petitioners: On what point were you asked to advise?

Mr Skerrett raised an objection that his friend was asking witness to disclose business between himself and a client. N

Mr Sinclair claimed “no privilege in this court,” quoting as an authority section 202 of the Legislative Act. Their Honours overruled Mr Sinclair’s contention. Justice Williams said that if there was one duty of ;j solicitor more sacred than another it was that of not divulging what took place between himself and his client. The section quoted did not release the solicitor from his duty not to divulge any advice given by him to his client. This concluded the case regarding Lho Carrying Co.

Mr Sinclair then went on to the case in which Mr McCallum was charged with making contracts for payment on account of the conveyance of electors to and from the poll for the ’purpose of promoting his election with Edward Stone Parker, a motor-car proprietor. He called Mr E. S. Parker, who testified that he had five motors, and on the day of the first ballot lent three cars to Mr McCallum for part of the at Mr McCallum’s request made in May ef last year, when Mr McCallum explained to him that lie could not afford to pay for the cars. On November 22, Mr McCallum lent him his motor and witness made thirty shillings out of its use. Mr McCallum had not bespoken his cars for another election if such took place within twelve months.

To Mr Skerrett: There was a misunderstanding regarding the first arrangement. Ho promised to lend Mr McCallum the cars for the election and considered that ho had fulfilled his obligation by lending him the cars ' at the first ballot. Mr Duncan’s secretaries came to him and ho pro-) raised them the cars for the second, ballot. Shortly afterwards Mr Bull) (Mr McCallum’s secretary) came to> him and reminded him that ho had! lent the cars to Mr McCallum for the election. Witness replied for December 7, and they then argued as to what the word election meant. Mr Bull finally convinced him that election meant both ballots, and he agreed to let him have the cars. He sent word to Mr Duncan’s secretaries that he couldn’t abide by his promise to them. There was no promise of payment or secret understanding with Mr McCallum and no payment was made by Mr McCallum either directly or indirectly. Witness said that about a week ago he went to the

i office of Mr Sinclair, counsel for petitioners, to give him a message. Mr Sinclair had asked to see the McKenzie Carrying Company’s books and said that they should .see their solicitor. Ho gave Mr Sinclair the solicrtov’s reply. Mr Sinclair then spoke of witness’ evidence and said that if ho didn’t give evidence that he had hired the cars to Mr McCallum, he (Mr Sinclair) would see witness got three years on the road. Witness considered it was said to intimidate him. To Mr Sinclair: Counsel didn’t ,:ay to him that punishment for perjuiy would be three years. He believed Mr Sinclair said that if witness made an incorrect statement he would bo prosecuted for perjury. Douglas Galloway, motor driver in Pa'ker’s employ, said that l e saw Mr Smrlair on Monday afternoon aid ask 'd him if Branton, another ivc-r, coni 1 be. called on Tuesday as ho wanted to go to Nelson. Mr Sinclair said that if Branton and witness made certain admissions both could go. It appeared to witness that Nr Sinclair wanted him to admit more than that he was driving for Mr McCallum on election day. Mr Sinclair said to him that it was ridiculous to think that Mr Parker was letting the cars to Mr McCallum for nothing. Arthur Wiffen, grain merchant-, one of the candidates at the recent election, -md 1 1 ere before the elect on Mr Parker told him he couldn’t let him have any cars on,election day as ho had promised them to Mr McCallum. The latter had arranged to lend him (Parker) his own car in the meantime, and on one occasion he had made four pounds out of it. Replying to Mr Skerrett, witness said that there’were only three places at which, during the election campaign, he didn’t shout, and at those pla’ces there were no hotels. He did not think that he was thereby improperly influencing votes. A crowd always gathered round when he was shouting for a couple of friends. The cause was adjourned till 10 a.m. to-morrow. \