THE WAIRAU SEAT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 75, 25 March 1912, Page 6

THE WAIRAU SEAT.

ELECTION PETITION DISMISSED. (Per . Press Association.) Blenheim, March 24. The Election Court delivered judgment at noon yesterday in the petition against the election of Richard McCallUm as member for Wairou. Tho judgment commences by pointing out. that the commission of a corrupt or illegal practice! involves serous penal consequences, including disqualification from holding any public or judicial office. In order to establish guilt some degree of proof is required as in an ordinary criminal case. Evidence must be such as to exclude any reasonable possibility of innocence. The Court .held that the charge against Wright in regard to making : a bet of' £3O was irrelevant to the inquiry. ’ Nb evidence -was offered in support of the allegation that McLauchlan stated that he was the agent of McOalhun and made several bets on the result, or in support of the- allegation that Humphreys was engaged as canvasser. The charges, therefore, which the Court had to consider were the charges of ■ treating, of' contracting for payment on' Account of conveyance of voters to the poll, of expenditure on election in excess of the amount al- , lowed by the. Act, and in respect ol the' engagement of Morrison. There was. absolutely no evidence in support of the allegation that A. McCallum gave certain electors money to buy liquor for treating the electors at Mirza. There Was nothing by which it could be reasonably inferred that, according to the principles of an election: agency, Humphreys in supplying drink at Scddon (was the agent of McCallum or that he' was any more than a voluntary worker on the Liberal side. In respect to liquor at Grove road, the evidence justified the conclusion that it was not brought there or usod r for the purposes of the Parliamentary election, hut in connection; with the licensing poll. There was nothing to show that A. McCallum had anything, to do with the liquor - through his office. Dealing with', tho charges of treating at Grove town and Okaramio, they were the only instances proved against,.respondent of supplying liquor during the whole of whis electoral campaign,, in the course : of 'which he "had delivered 42 ' addresses, and there ■could lie hb suggestion that the supplying of liquor on these two occasions was a part of a scheme oft treating with a view to influencing electors generally. The circumstances attending the supplying of ttriuks at Groveown were not sufficient to show that drink was supplied by Sutherland with the intention?, either on’ his part .or oh the part * of MbCallum, cf influencing the result of the- election or the votes of tlio election. The charges with respect to alleged making of contracts for the hire o( vehicles had given rise to some difficulty. Referring to the use of Parker’s cars, the judgment says that McCallum wasl not seriously attacked as' to his voracity. He appeared to the Court to give his evidence candidly. Their Honors saw no reason to doubt that he gave it thruthfully. If his version of this arrangement was and they did accept it as true, an<l they found Parker’s account substantially the same, there was, therefore, no evidence in support of the charge.; In regard to the use of Best’s cars, tho Court saw no reason to doubt the truth of respondent's evidence. The alleged Eire cf vehicles from the .McKenzie Carrying Company- occupied" tho • attention rf the Court a very long time. It was objected' that Hogan, the cc-"n”-y’s manager, had'no authority either actual or presumed to enter into an arrangement' to give tho use of the vehicles gratuitously. The Court was. satisfied that so long as lie asked honestly a person in respondent’s position'was not bound to look beyond Hogan in any arrangement he might make. They were satisfied upon respondent's own evidence, confirmed by Hogan’s, that respondent never intended to make any contract or in any way to- render himself liable to pay for the vehicles. / In discussing the charge regarding excessive election expenses, their Honors - said: “It might have been expected that the petitioners would have shown some foundation for the grave and specific charges set out in the particulars.- It was im a high' degree improper that serious charges should be made without some solid ground to support them.” In respect to the charges as to the employment of Frank Morrison for payment, petitioners’ ease was supported by unsworn statements and circumstances giving rise to suspicion. Respondent’s ejaso rested upon worn testimony of all persons implicated contradicting the unsworn statements of Morrison and also by considerations which to some extent weakened the circumstances of suspicion. "Where on one side there was sworn evidence by persons whose characters were unimpeached on the other unsworn statements and suspicions circumstances, the former must prevail Charges in relation to Morrison had not been made out. In conclusion - we are of opinion that the case for the petitioners has failed and that Mr Richard McCallum has been duly elected, and we shall report accordingly to the Hon. Speaker. The Court orders that petitioners pay respondent the costs of and incidental to the petition and trial thereof to he taxed by the registrar pursuant to rules.