THE WAIRAU SEAT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 228, 25 March 1912, Page 5

THE WAIRAU SEAT.

THE PETITION DISMISSED. WITH COSTS AGAINST PETITIONERS iiy ieli'grapii—Press Association. Blenheim, Last Night. The Election Court delivered judgment at noon yesterday in the petition against the election of Richard McCallum as member for Waira*. , t i The judgment commences by pointing out that the commission of a corrupt or illegal practice involves serious 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. No evidence was offered in support of the allegation that McLauchlan stated that he was the agent of McCallum 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 allowed by the Act, and in respect of 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 according to the principles of an election agency, Humphreys in supplying drink at Seddon 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 used for the purposes of the Parliamentary election, but 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 the charges of treating at Grovetown and Okaramio, they were the only iri"tances proved against respondent of supplying liquor during the whole of his electoral campaign, in the course of which he had delivered 42 addressee, and there could be no suggestion that the supplying of liquor on these two occasions was a part of a scheme of treating with a view to influencing electors generally. The circumstances attending the supplying of drink at Grovetown were not sufficient to show that drink was supplied by Sutherland with the' inten; tion, either on his part or on the part of McCallum, of influencing the result of the election or the votes of the election! The charges with respect to alleged making of contracts for the hire of vehicles had given rise to some difficulty. Referring to the use of Parker's cars, the judgment sayg that McCallum was not seriously attacked' as to his veracity. He appeared to the court to give his evidence candidly. Their Honors saw no reason to doubt that he gave it truthfully. If his version of this arrangement was accepted, and they did accept it as true, and they found Parker's account i substantially the same, there was, therefore, no evidence in support of the ,* charge. In regard to the use of Best's t cars, the court saw no reason to doubt.f the truth of respondent's evidence. The alleged hire of vehicles from the McKenzie Carrying Company .ocgupjed the attention of the court a very long time. It was objected that Hogan, the company's manager, had no authority either actual or- --presumed to enter into an arrangement to give the use of- the vehicles gratuitously. The court was satisfied that so long as he asked honestly a person in respondent's posi- - tion was not bound to look beyond Hogan in any arrangement he might make. They were satisfied upon ire* spondent's own evidence, confirmed 'by Hogan's, that respondent never intended to make any contract or in any wav to render himself liable to pay for the vehicles. w 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. in 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 Prank Morrison for payment, petitioners' case was supported by statements and circumstance's giving rise to suspicion. Respondent's case rested upon sworn testimony of all the 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 whoso characters were unimpeaehed, on the other unsworn statements and suspicious 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 lias been duly elected, and we shall report accordingly to the Hon. Speaker. The court orders that petitioners pay respondent costs of and incidental to the petition and trial thereof to be taxed by the registrar pursuant to rules.