THE WAIRAU PETITION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 226, 22 March 1912, Page 5

THE WAIRAU PETITION.

THE EVIDENCE CONCLUDED. JUDGMENT TO BE GIVEN TO-DAY. By Telegraph —Press Association. Blenheim, Thursday. The Election Court resumed this morning the hearing of the petition against the election of Richard McCallum as member for Wairau. Mr. Sinclair re-examined Frank Morrison regarding allegations made yesterday in reference to interviews with Mr. Sinclair. Witness denied saying that when he went to town on the Saturday after the interview at Renwick he would go to Macey to get the money. It was an absolute untruth to say that he promised to see Macey at church on December 31 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 Mr. Duncan's secretaries, said Morrison told him he had been offered and accepted £ 1 a day to canvass Mr. Wiffen's supporters for Mr. McCallum between the two ballots. The night before the second ballot Morrison informed him that A. McCallum and himself had been to Mirza, Ward and Seddon, and that most of Mr. Wiffen's supporters were going to support Mr. McCallum. He gave witness letter's to give to the chairman of Mr. McCallum's committee, as he said he didn't want to give them himself. ■ To Justice 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.

Continuing Healy said that he had paid Parker £33 for the hire of cars on election days and during the campaign. Hogan offered witness vehicles for use on polling days, but not free. To Mr. Skerrett: He was aware that it was riot proper for Mr. Duncan to hire cars for use on election days. Mr. Duncan gave witness a cheque for £3O odd to pay all election expenses. He couldn't say the £33 was not included in Mr. Duncan's cheque. To Justice Chapman: Both witness and the other secretary were out of pocket over the election. He hired four vehicles for use on election days. He was not encouraging Morrison to play false on Mr. McCallum. He wouldn't swear that Mr. Sinclair didn't tell him he had seen Morrison and Morrison said he never receivsd money from Macey. He hadn't paid £5 towards the cost of the petition.

Arthur Wiflen, one of the -candidate* at last election, said that Morrison told him he was getting £1 a day from Macey for working for Mr. McCallum. which Macey had said Mr. McCallum had nothing to do with. James O'Neill gave similar evidence. Healy, recalled, said Mr. Duncan gave him a cheque for £l7l 5s Bd. Witness did not know whether Mr. Duncan had returned his- expenses as £79. / Blenheim, Last Night. Mr. Sinclair asked the Court, under section 198 of the Legislature Act, to give him permission to call evidence of illegal practice against Joseph William Humphrey, of Seddon.

Mr. Skerrett objected to introducing this case in the present proceedings. Mr. Justice Williams' said that the evidence against Humphreys was not evidence against McCallum unless it was afterwards proved that Humphreys was McCallum's agent. The Court decided to admit the evidence.

I Mr. Patrick Median, of Seddon, said | that Humphreys, who had previously I acted as deputy returning officer, told him that he was not acting this time as he was getting paid far better by not touching it. Mr. Sinclair wanted to introduce the name of Mr. Wright, of Seddon, as having made a bet which counsel claimed affected the result of the election. Their Honors ruled this out under clause 25 of the petition, as agency was not even alleged. They refused to admit the principle that because a man was a strong supporter qf a political candidate he was therefore his agent. Joseph William Humphreys, late schoolmaster at Seddon, said that he was not an intimate friend of Mr. McCallum. He proposed a vote of confidence in him at the Seddon meeting. He was interested in the return of Mr. McCallum as a representative of the Liberal- Party. He canvassed nobody in Mr. McCallum's interest. On the day of the first ballot there was a quantity of liquor at a private hall in Seddon, of which witness was a shareholder and secretary. It belonged to him and a few friends and had nothing to do with politics. On the second ballot day he had no liquor. He didn't say after either ballot that he, had plenty of Mr. McCallum's money left. He' denied Mr. Meehan's statement regarding his not acting as deputy returning officer. To Mr. Skerrett: He never asked any man how he was going to vote. The liquor on the first ballot day was not used in any way to further Mr. McCallum's election. He had received neither payment nor promise of payment from Mr. McCallum.

Tasman Frank Bell, secretary of Mr. McCallum's committee, said that he had received no payment or promise of payment. The account as returned (£116) represented all the expenditure in connection with the election and all liabilities. He made no payment to either Frank Morrison or J. W. Humphreys, and during the election he heard nothing of any such payment. A day or two before Christmas he got a message by telephone from Mr. Jenkins at Ward, asking him to get Dodson's Brewery to forward a cask of beer care of Harwood or some such name at Ward. The special instructions to get the beer away by a particular train were also given, and they also stated that the money for the beer would be sent later. He gave the order as requestd. A few days afterwards he received a letter from Mr. Jenkins enclosing postal notes : for 365. He told Mr. Dodson to call for the money, but he hadn't yet done so. The supply of beer had no connection with the election. Harwood was n carter at Ward. A. McCallum, recalled, said that he didn't give H. W. Jenkins any money and didn't leave any anywhere for iiim. E. H. Best, recalled, said that his clerk made entries, in the ledger debiting Mr. McCallum with the car hire. As soon as witness discovered the entries had gone through he altered them. This was shortly after the election. This closed the case for the petitioners. Mr. Skerrett called only one witness, John Henry Sutherland, chairman of Mr. McCallum's Grovetown committee, who said that after the meeting the night before the first ballot he asked Mr. McCallum to the hotel to have a drink. On the way out witness asked about 10 friends to come too. When he reached the hotel there was a fair crowd there. Witness called for drinks. He hadn't enough money at the time to pay for all the drinks that were served. To Mr. Sinclair: He called and offered payment for them a few days afterwards, but the licensee's wife said that any time would do. There was no connection between the date of the receipt of a cheque from Mr. McCallum and the date of pnying the account for drinks. This plospc! the case for respondents. Mr. Sinclair asked leave to call evidence regarding the Drj'den alleged bribery incident. Mr. Skerrett objected. His friend had

deliberately closed his case and their Honors had previously given permission to call evidence if he wished and reserved his (Mr. Skerrett's) objection. Their Honors overruled Mr. Sinclair's argument and upheld the objection that the new clause did not amount to bribery. Mr. Skerrett, in addressing the Bench, said that the charges were founded on gossip. All that could be insinuated against Mr. McCallum had betn done. The charges worthy of consideration had been reduced to three, viz., (1) Treating at Grovetown and Okaramio; (2) alleged hiring of conveyances on election days; (3) alleged payment or promise to pay Prank Morrison as canvasser between the two ballots. Regarding the treating it might be an offence at common law, but had any single instance of treating ever voided an election at common law. He contended that an offence at common law had not been proved in this case. There was no renewal or corrupt treating nor excessive drinking. Mr. McCallum was not the host and there was no demonstration in his favor. It was a mere incident of an election meeting and nothing was hidden. At the first ballot on the day after the Grovetown incident Mr. McCallum was the unsuccessful candidate. Re the allegation of p'-ivmcnt or contracting for payment for hire of vehicles on the election days, there was no evidence on oath that payment was made. There was no contract for payment for the use of . the Mcft Kenzie Carrying Company's vehicles, and the account was repudiated immediately it was sent in. The same argument applied re Parker's and Best's cars. With reference to the alleged payment to Morrison there was no evidence- on oath that he was paid or promised payment. Regarding his statements about receiving £1 a day, it was evident that Morrison • was running with the hare and Taunting with the hounds. He contended that no evidence connecting Mr. McCallum with the Seddon, Mirza and Groveroad liquor episodes had been tendered. Mr. Sinclair said the Grovetown incident occurred two hours before the commencement of polling day. He quoted a case in 1869 in support of his contention that the election must be voided. He contended that the evidence that Mr. McCallum said "Well lower Sutherland's pocket," proved the petitioner's case up to the hilt. The non-payment for drinks at once stamped it as an election offence. Regarding the Grove road epi«ide, Mr. Dodson admitted the beer was in Mr. McCallum's office the day of the first ballot. Mr. Dodson supplied liquor to electors. Hyndman had testified that a number of voters were under the influence of liquor when they came into the booth. In connection with the McKenzie Carrying Company case Mr. McCallum dealt with the company and must have known that it was not the manager's place to give away the use of vehicles and men to the extent of £3O. Hogan also had incurred debts for the company to pay and referred the account to Macey, who repudiated it because the petition had been lodged. Re Parker's cars, counsel contended it had been proved that Parker had made £4 from the use of Mr. McCallum's car. That was equivalent to Mr. McCallum paying £4 for the use of one of Parker's cars. Counsel next dealt with Morrison's charges. Morrison consulted Mr. Wiffen, a former employer, as to whether he should accept £1 per day, and had admitted to another man that he had done well out of the election and had received £1 per day. Mr. Justice Chapman: Has anyone given evidence of such a contract? Mr. Sinclair: No, we have only M'orrison's statement. Mr. Sinclair, continuing, re the supply of beer at Mirza, why was the entry ia Dodson's book in Mr. McCallum's nameT Why did the Dodson Company not touch the money for beer? Mr. Justice Williams: But the beer was supplied after the elections. Mr. Sinclair: It is suspicious that the money lay unclaimed. Counsel, continuing, as to the Seddon episode Humphreys was shown to be a supporter of McCallum and had supplied Uiquor on polling day. In reference to the Okaramio incident if Mr. Wiffen did wrong in shouting for tho electors, that didn't excuse Mr. McCallum. If their Honors were of opinion that Best charged _ Mr. McCallum for the use of the car it would be evidence of corrupt practice and would provide grounds for a fresh petition. The Court adjourned till Fridav, Their Honors intimated that they were not certain whether they would be able to deliver judgment then.