THE WAIRAU SEAT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 72, 21 March 1912, Page 5

THE WAIRAU SEAT.

HEARING OF UNSEATING PETITION CONTINUED. SOME INTERESTING EVIDENCE. (Per Press Association.) Blenheim, March 20. Regarding the cause concerning McCallum’s expenses, McCallum testified that his expenses at the first ballot were £ll6 Os 3d. His secretary gave his services free, and he had no secretary at Picton. Ho had neve; paid Mr Newman, of Picton, £ls ;n connection with the election. He had paid no rent for anyone in Picton. He did not obtain quantities of liquor from Mr Campbell, hotelkeeper at Picton, and never took any liquor on his trips down the sounds. To Mr Skerrett: He was on friendly terms with E. Parker, and asked him fo lend him (witness) his cars at election time. He, however, let him know immediately that he couldn’t make any payment for them. Parker demurred at first, but finally consented, stating that he must keep one for Mr Duncan. There was no secret understanding that Parker was to be paid. He also saw Parker, who was the largest shareholder, in reference to securing a share of the vehicles of the McKenzie Carrying Co. Parker, who , was perfectly willing, referred witness to the company’s manager, who said he would do the best he could. When Mr Masey received the company’s account, witness went and saw H -an, who informed him that the account should not have been sent and took it back. With regard to the Grovetown incident, he said that Sutherland, his chairman, asked him and several friends to have a drink after the meeting. When they got to the hotel they found it full. Sutherland then decided to shout for all hands. Witness did not employ Morrison to canvass for him between the first and second ballots, nor did his agents. William Henry Newman said that for a time he acted as secretary in Picton for Mr McCallum. He did not terminate the arrangement because Mr McCallum refused to pay him. It was after he resigned the 'secretaryship that he was offered and accepted the position of deputy returning, officer at Te. Awaite;; Mr McCallum had no hand in getting him the appointment. He did no. canvas ung for Mr McCallum, and had received no money!; from him during the; Jafjt six months, but he had received' £ls from a client of Messrs McCallum and Mills in security of his life assurance policy. This was early in October last.

Etliel'oert H. Best, motor-car proprietor, said that the use of one of his cars was given gratuitiously to Mr McCailum on each day. John W. Campbell, licensee of the Federal Hotel at Picton, said that Mr McCailum did not obtain any supplies of liqhdr from him. Mr Sinclair then dealt with the charge that at Mirza, between the first and second ballots, Archibald McCailum, respondent’s brother, gave the electors money to buy liquor for the purpose of treating and bribing such electors to vote for respondent. Frank Dodson, late member of the firm of Dodson Company, brewers, said that on November 20 he gave his celhvrman an order for 18 gallons of boer, entered as “J. Hargood, Ward, and McCailum,” and consigned it at the railway to Hargood. Frank Bull gave him the order and told him the other day he had the money to pay him. He had never been able to find Hargood. James Chinn, manager of the Dodson Brewery, said that some days after the beer had been supplied Norman Dodson, another member of the firm, asked witness not to charge the beer, and accordingly ho didn’t transfer the entry to the ledger. Norman Dodson corroborated this, and said that it was at Frank Dodson’s request. He didn’t know J. Hargood. In regard to supplying liquor at Okarimo for the purpose of influencing votes, George Noble, a farmer, said that after Mr. McCailum\s meeting there on November 25 a number of electors had a drink for which he understood Mr. McCailum paid, but ho was not certain. Respondent was talking to somebody outside the hotel when witness had his drink. David Henderson, a farmer, said that he and a friend or two walked into the hotel where Mr. A. McCailum asked them to have a drink. If Me Galium had not asked them they would have had a drink by themselves. They generally looked for a drink from political candidates during the election campaign.

Mr Sinclair then reverted to the Parker case, Edvard Parker having returned from Ids farm. Parker said that he had told Mr O’Sullivan and family that Mr Bull had kept witness to his agreement to let Mr McCallum have the cars for the election. He probably told them that the cars were engaged for the next election. Mr Sinclair wished to ask the witness a question regarding the hire of j a motor car by Healy (Mr Duncan’si secretary), but Mr Skerrett objected, | and His Honor uphold the objection. | On the charges of promising and paying money to Frank Morrison, in return for his services between the first and second ballots, William Henry Macey denied that he was instructed at a meeting of Liberal supporters after the first ballot to engage Morrison to canvass for votes for Mr McCallum. Ho went to Morrison’s house one night, as Morrison had promised previous to the first ballot to do all he could to assist Mr McCallum if Mr Widen, of whoso com--1 mittee he was chairman, was defeated at the first ballot, and asked Mr

Morrison if he could give a good deal of his time to working in Mr McCallum’s interests. Mr Morrison said he would if he could arrange his work, and came to see him next morning. It was arranged that Mr Morrison should accompany Mr Macartneys and address the meeting at Renwick that evening. Mr Morrison accompanied Mr A. McCallum to Seddon on Tuesday. He gave Mr Morrison to understand that neither Mr R. McCallum nor witness could offer him payment. Archibald McCallum said that on the Tuesday before the second ballot, Mr Morrison accompanied him on a motor-car trip to Seddon and Ward. To Mr Justice Williams: He neither promised nor paid Mr Morrison any money. To Mr Skerrett: He was no party to .sending beer to Mirza and knew of none going either there or to any other part of the electorate. Frank Morrison said that on the occasion of the conversation with Mr Mncey the latter did not agree to pay him. He didn’t go to Mr Wift'en and consult him as to whether witness should take the position of canvasser for Mr McCallum at a remuneration of £1 per day. He might have told a good many that he was getting £1 a day in order to deliberately mislead them. He did not get one penny anyone, nor did he admit getting £1 anonymously through the post.

To Mr Skerrett: In December after the election Mr Sinclair and two others came to the farm where witness was working and said he had come on election business. Mr Sinclair produced a paper containing the words, “F. Morrison, £1 per day.” He then told witness that he wanted him to help in upsetting the election and that he was representing Carr and others. Witness told Mr Sinclair he did not see that he could do any good, as he hadn’t received any money. Mr Sinclair said, “You have.” Witness again denied this, and then Mr Sinclair said, “When you go to town on Saturday see Mr Macey and get the money.” Witness said that no money was coming to him. When in town on Saturday he didn’t call on Mr Macey. On December 21 Mr Sinclair called at his house and asked him if he had got any money from Mr Macey. Witness said that he had received no money from Mr Macey. Then Mr Sinclair asked him if he had a “nip” in the house, and jho said he hadn’t. He next saw Mr Sinclair on December 29, at Reni wick. M "Mr Sinclair told him that ho had brought a man to take witness’s place so that he could go to town and get the money. Witness replied that he was capable of doing his own work himself. Mr Sinclair then said, “What would be nicer than having the next two days off. You could loaf about town, casually" bump up against Mr Macey and ask him for the money owing to you.” Witness said that Mr Macey would want to know what money. Mr Sinclair said, “You know there’s ( money coming to you.” ; Witness again denied this. Mr Sinclair then told him that he was very foolish, for if lie helped to upset the election there was a good thing in it for him, a good lump sum. _ Mr Sinclair then offered him whisky, and after having a drink together, Mr Sinclair gave him the remainder .of the contents (produced). He saw Mr Sinclair again at about half-past five on New Year’s morning near witness’ house. Mr Sinclair said, “Have you got the money yet?” Witness said, “No; he washed his hands of all that dirty business.” He didn’t see Mr McCailum or Mr Macey from the evening of the second ballot till after the publication of the petition on January 18. He had made statements about being paid before the ( publication of the petition. The Court adjourned till 10 o’clock on Thursday morning.

THE UNSEATING PETITION. Blenheim, March 21. Mr Sinclair re-examined Frank Morrison regarding the allegations made yesterday in reference to interviews with Sinclair. Witness denied saying that when he went to town on Saturday after the interview at Renwick he would go to Macey and get the money. It was an absolute untruth to say that he promised to see Macey at church on December 31st and get the money. He did not say on New Year’s Day that he had decided to abandon the matter because it .would injure himself and family. Edward Francis Healy, one of Duncan’s secretaries, said Morrison told him that he had been offered and had accepted a pound a day to canvas Wiffm’s supporters for McCallum between the two ballots. The night before the second ballot Morrison informed him that A. McCallum and self had been to Mirza, Ward and Seddon and most of Wiffm’s supporters were going to support McCallum. Ho gave witness letters to give the chairman of McCallum’s committee as he said ho didn’t want to give them himself. To Mr Chapman: He didn’t know what Morrison’s game was. Morrison never tried to make any money out of witness’ side. He placed no reliance on what Morrison said.