BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 207, 29 February 1912, Page 4

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

ME. MASSEY'S LETTER. EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION. PRODUCTION OF THE LETTER DESIRED. By Telegraph—Press Association'. Wellington, Wednesday. The meeting of the Privilege Committee this morning was fully attended. Arguments were heard by counsel on both sides. i Mr. Skerrett, for Mr. Payne, said that Mr. Massey was in the; position of prosecutor, and it was for him to call evidence, and this side would refute it. , Mr. Myers said that Mr. Massey had nothing to add to what he said in the House on Monday night. 'He quoted an article in support of the contention that the writer had a common law property in the letter, and could interfere with its unlimited use. The letter could be used for a lawful purpose, but publication was not a lawful purpose. The writer of the letter could obtain an injunction from the Supreme Court to prevent Mr. Massey publishing the letter. To produce the same might expose two or three persons to libel actions. It would be most improper to produce the letter. Even the Court would not order the publication of the letter unless an undertaking was given that it would not be used for such purposed. The committee could not control persons other than Mr. Payne, as they were not before it.

Mr. Skerrett said the cases cited by Mr. Myers were irrelevant. If Mr. Massey were in the 'witness box ho would not be privileged from disclosing the name and producing the letter which was the gravamen of the whole charge. An undertaking given by Mr. Payne would certainly be binding. The statement of Mr. Myers that the publishing of the letter would not be a breach' of privilege would not hold. He was not prepared to say what Mr. Payne would do in regard to the production of the letter.

. After further argument the committee proceeded to deliberate on the queg> tion.

On resuming, Mr. Myers, on behalf of Mr. Massey, respectfully declined to produce tlie letter or give the name of the author,

Mr. Russell suggested that it was the duty of the committee to have Mr. Massey sworn. If he then refused to produce the letter, a refusal could be recorded in the evidence and included in the report to the House. Mr. Skerrett, on behalf of Mr. Payne, stated that the. latter desired to press for the- production of the letter. The committee proceeded to deal with order of refence No. 3, in regard to the alleged 'offer by Mr. McMasters of a bribe to Mr. Payne. Mr. T, Young appeared for Mr. McMasters, Mr. Skerrett, K.C., for Mr. Payne, and Mr. Myers for Mr. Massey.

\Tohn Payne, sworn and examined by Mr. Skerrett, said that Mr, McMasters was a supporter of his from the beginning of the campaign. He remembered having a conversation with.Mr. McMasters on February 9. This was at th« Thistle Hotel. He had a drink at the bar, but did not discuss the political situation. Mr. McMasters took him by the arm and said, "Come along; I wish to speak to von." They went into Mr. O'Connor's ofTif'. and Mr. McMasters asked witness, "How are things going? You keep as you are. You have a better block than I. You will be all right." Witness understood him to refer to the political"'situation. Mr.'McMasters then said, "I've been authorised to offer you £SOO or £IOOO to go with the wWd administration." Witness looked t right him. Mr. McMasters was under the influence of liquor and witness did not regard his statement as a direct offer. Witness ignored the statement altogether. It was not renewed or referred to, and he did not regard Mr. -McMasters as responsible for his words. Witness and McMasters then went to see Mr. Massey at the Auckland Club, and soon afterwards they "were joined by Mr. Herries. McMasters said, "I've brought Payne to see you, Mr. Massev." The latter replied, "Oh! I'm before you. I've already seen him." The conversation proceeded on general lines, and uiere was little of any importance to the political situation. Witness had already seen Mr. Massey and told him he would indicate how he would vote that afternoon. Witness related the circumstances of -the meeting. He told Mr. Mjis'sey that in view of the Dominion newspaper's attitude on the tramway strike he would have to consult his committee in regard to supporting Mr. Massey. Subsequently he saw Mr. Massey at Mr. Dickson's office on the same day, and he told Mr. Massey then that' lie could support the former on a no-con-fidence motion.

As they were leaving the Club Mr. McMasters said", "We'll have that post office at Richmond and Til get the credit of it."

Mr. Herries was only in the room a few minutes, and did not hear the conversation.

On the following Thursday witness attended at Mr.'Massey's office at Wellington, by request of Mr. Dickson. The purpose of the meeting was to ascertain how witness would vote. He gave Mr. Massey no- promise. Mr. Massey said if witness broke his pledge he would commit political suicide.

To Mr. Young: Did not know if McMasters was interested in the liquor trade.

THE OFFER BUT A JOKE. TAKING OF EVIDENCE CLOSED. Wellington, Last Night, i Charles McMasters was then sworn, and examined by Mr. Young. Witness was a wine merchant. He opposed Mr. Fowlds' candidature. He denied being intoxicated on the occasion of the alleged offer. He detailed the circumstances leading up to the meeting with Mr. Payne. Witness introduced the latter to Mr. O'Connor. Subsequently he saw Mr. Payne at the Thistle Hotel, and asked nijn if it were true he was going to break his pledge. Witness asked Mr. Payne to go along to the Auckland Club to "wet Mr. Massey. Mr. Payne did so. Witness asked Mr Payne in the presence of Mr. Massey if he intended keeping his pledge and vote against Sir J. G. Ward. His reply was, "Yes." Witness said to Mr. Payne, by way of a joke, that he could get £SOO if he could handle him. Payne took it as a joke. Witness mentioned no party. He denied Mr. Payne s statement that witness said lie had been authorised to make an offer. He had not been so authorised. To Mr. Myers: He was working for Mr. Payne at the election in the interests of his trade.

To Mr. Skerrett: After the election lie was not opposed to Sir Joseph Ward. His reason for asking Mr. Payne if he intended to break his pledge was that he iiad been told by many people that Mr. Payne would "rat." He opened the conversation with Mr. Payne by saying he could get £SOO or £IOOO if witness could handle him. Asked where the humour was in the statement, witness eaid it was a joke pure and simple. He was under the impression when he spoke to Mr. Pavne that there would be a dissolution, and he desired to secure the Grey Lynn seat against Mr. Fowlds. He did 'not own property at Richmond. His wife owned property there; Mr. Millar: Where did you expect to get £SOO if Mr. Payne broke his pledge? Witness: From no source whatever.

To Mr. Russell: It was suggested by Mr, Payne's committee that witness should bring pressure to bear on the former in order that he should keep hift pledge.

To Mr. Reed: When he approached Mr, Payne witness had confidence in himj and ' felt that he would saj he would/keep his pledge. Sir Joseph Ward asked witness if any; suggestion had been made that the Government in any way was directly or in» directly connected with the offer. Witness,*- None whatever.

Replying to Mr. Myers, said he supported Mr. Payne at both the first and second ballots.

In answer to Mr. Skerrett, witness said lie told Mr. Payne he only supported him in the interests of the trade.

Mr. Massey, called, said there sign of intoxication on McMaster "when he saw him.

Mr. Skerrett: Could witness understand why McMaster, if perfectly sober, should make such an offer? Mr. Massey said he could understand such a Mr. Payne did not tel) witness he understpod 'the offer as a joke.

This concluded the evidence. The chairman announced that thi committee would deliberate and submit their report to the House to-morrow.