THE WAIRAU PETITION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 224, 20 March 1912, Page 5

THE WAIRAU PETITION.

CONVEYANCE OF ELECTORS TO THE POLLS. WERE THE MOTOR-CARS LENT? "A SOLICITOR'S SACRED DUTY." By Telegraph—Press Association. Blenheim, Tuesday. The Election Court resumed this morning the hearing of the petition against the election of Richard McCallum as member for Wairau. William Humphries, secretary of the McKenzie Carrying Co., continuing Ins evidence regarding the movement ot the company's vehicles on election day, said the substitution of the name of Mr. Macey, chairman of Mr. McCallum s general committee, for that of Mr. Sutherland, chairman of the Grovetown committee, was made on the instruction of Mr. Hogan, who was then manager for the company. Mr. Janies Frank Nosworthy, chairman of directors of the McKenzie Carrying Co., said no proposition had been made to the company during the last six months to supply vehicles free to anybody. Mr. Hogan, the manager, left the company's service of his own accbrd en March 2. Neither Mr. Macey nor Mr. McCallum saw witness with reference to the account for £3O 16s for hire of vehicles. Witness instructed the company's solicitor 'to examine the books for December as the secretary desired to be perfectly clear regarding the account which Mr. Macey disputed, as he knew the company would be subpoenaedi He never 'instructed Hogan or any other employee to give vehicles gratuitously to Mr. McCallum. To Mr. Skerrett: No action had been taken with regard to suing Mr. Macey for the unpaid account. "Michael Hogari, late manager for the McKenzie Carrying Co., said that Mr. McCallum 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 16s 6d had been charged up in the 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 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. He 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. 1 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 be altered.

Blenheim, Last Night. Mr. Hogan, replying to Mr. Sinclair, said that the' reason why he did not report to the directors that he had given the vehicles to Mr. McCallum free was not because he knew that he 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 approached Mr. Mcr Galium 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 traps if (they wanted them. The Licensed Victuallers and No-License League both hired traps, for which they paid-.-" r-

William John Roach, foreman at the McKenzie Carrying Co. stables, said lie ■iidae entries of the vehicles to Mr. Mac.ey on Hoganls instructions:James F. Michalannay, a livery stablekeepier, 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 for one and' £ 1 10s for the other, but had not yet been paid. Both Hogan and Humphreys told him to refer the account to Mr. Macey and it would he paid later on. He didn't send it to Mr. Macty. George P. Rogers, solicitor to the Carrying Co., said that he was consulted regarding the books 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. Mr. Sinclair claimed "no privilege in this court," quoting as an authority section 202 of the Legislative Act. Their Honors overruled Mr. Sinclair's contention. Justice Williams said that if there was one duty of a 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 the 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 day, at Mr. McCallum's request made in May of last year, when Mr. McCallum explained to him that he could not 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. He promised to lend Mr. McCallum the cars for the election and considered that he had fulfilled his obligation by lending him the cars at the first ballot. Mr. Duncan's secretaries came to him and he promised them the cars for the second ballot. Shortly afterwards Mr. Bull (Mr. McCallum's secretary) came to him and reminded him thai he 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 afro he went to the '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 solicitor's reply. Mr, Sinclair then spoke of witness' evidence and said that if he didn't given evidence that he had hired the cars to Mr. McCallum, he (Mr. Sinclair) would sec witness got three years on the road. Witness considered it was said to intimidate him. To Mr. Sinclair: Counsel didn't say t* him that punishment for perjury would be three years. He believed Mr.

Sinclair said that if witness made an incorrect statement he would be prosecuted for perjury. Douglas Calloway, motor driver in] Parker's employ, said that he saw Mr. Sinclair on Monday afternoon and asked] him if Branton, another driver, could be called on Tuesday as he wanted toi go to Nelson. Mr. Sinclair said that if Jlran.ton and witness made certain admissions both could go. It appeared to witness that Mr. Sinclair wanted him to aidmit 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 care to Mr. McCallum for nothing. . • Arthur Wiffen, grain merchant, 'one of the candidates at the. recent election, said that before the election Mr. Parker told him he couldn't let him have any cars on election day as he 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 places there were no hotels. He did not think that lie was thereby improperly influencing votes. A crowd always gathered round when he was shouting for a couple of friends. The case was adjourned till 10 a.m.' to-morrow.