THE STRATFORD SEAT.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 March 1920, Page 6

THE STRATFORD SEAT.

PETITION AGAINST THE ELECTION SECOND DAY'S HEARING. QUESTION OF ALIEN VOTES. The hearing of the Stratford election petition was continued at Stratford yeaterday. J The case concerns a petition by Mr. J. B. Hine (formerly M.P. for Stratford and a member of the Cabinet) against the return of Mr. Robert Masters as member for the district at the general elections on the ground that Mr. Masters (or his agents) was guilty of corrupt practices, by providing a moving picture show and music prior to an address delivered on December ltl, and also that a large number of persons who voted for Masters were not entitled to be registered Is voters. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Mr. Justice Chapman presided. Mr. M. Myers appeared on behalf of the petitioners (Messrs W. H. 11. Young, George Hall, and J. B. Hine); and Sir John Findlay, K.C., represented Mr. Masters.

PETITIONERS' CASE. ANOTHER SCRUTINY WANTED. Mr. Myers said that as a result of the conference with the opposing counsel, he had been able, to a considerable extent, to shorten the proceedings, although there might be some difficulty about two or three in class one. His friend was prepared to admit that all the persons mentioned in this class were present at the picture entertainment on December 16th, and if it was held to be a corrupt practice, the petitioners claimed on that ground that they were entitled, to the seat. Sir John Findlay said he hardly agreed that if corrupt practices were held to have been committed in regard to the picture entertainment, that Major Hine would be entitled to the seat. If the entertainment amounted to bribery, Mr. Masters would be disqualified from standing again for a long time, and it did not matter to him who got the seat. Mr. Myers again suggested that a partial scrutiny of the ballot papers should be made to ascertain in how many case, l ! ■the voters' Numbers had been omitted from the counterfoils. Sir Robert Stout remarked that the number of ballot papers tallied with the number of counterfoils, and there did nos appear to be any suggestion that any papers had been put in surreptitiously. There were scrutineers at the booths, aiftl it was their duty to make sure of the identity of the person desiring to vote. What Mr. Myers was asking for was a scrutiny to determine how'many counterfoils were without numbers on them. Mr. Myers submitted that it would be impossible to tell what the result of the scrutiny would be until it was held. An irregularity had occurred, and it was impossible to recognise the voters whose numbers had not been placed on the counterfoils. It was possible that there might be cases of impersonation, and it would be impossible to recognise the voters where there were no numbers. lie wanted to know how many counterfoils there were without the numbers.

British subject by naturalisation. Rebecca Manoy and. Sarah Manoy wen? his daughters and had been bom in Russia. lie was naturalised in 1907. Augusta Dombroski, Norfolk Road, married woman, said she was born in Poland She had been a widow for 22 )'««- &nrl her husband had also been a .Polij siShe had arrived in New Zealand in 18j G, and she understood that she was naturalised in London before coning out to New Zealand. She was pot naturalised in New Zealand. Mr. Justice Cb.ii.mar, said that ho had understood that the English naturalisation iva.= ecnlined to the United Kingdom. unless the applicant came under ilie 191! Act Tc Sir .lohn F.ndloy: She regarded her naturalisation in' London as sufficient for New Zealand. Mr. Justice Chapman: 'fiat appear.? to De o. very common belief. Valentine Bilski, Inglewood, laborer, said he was of Polish descent. Ke was born in Hokitika, He had lived all his life in >Jew Zealand. Martha Fischer, Norfolk Road, wife of Benedict Fischer, said her husband had been 43 years in Mew Zealand and was naturalised. She coiild not say that she had seen her husband's naturalisation papers, but she kniw that lie was naturalised. Her husband had fought in the Maori War. To Sir John Findlay: She had a recollection of an offer made by the Government to grant naturalisation papers free to alien's wlio took up arms against the Maoris. Mr. Myers said that Mr. T. C. Fookes had informed him that a great many aliens had received memorials asking for naturalisation, and they had retained them thinking they were naturalisation papers. CASE OF AMERICANS. Mr. Justice Chapman: No doubt that accounts for so many cases of aliens thinking they are naturalisedAgnes Frydav, wife of John Fryday. Midlurst, said her husband's name was not- on the roll because be was born in Poland, but he was naturalised. To Sir Robert Stout: She had been born in New Zealand. Samuel Benton Hunter, dentist, Stratford, said he had been in New Zealand for 22 years. He lived in America from three years of age until he was seventeen, and then off and on until he came to New Zealand. His present age was fid years. While in America witness had been a member of the Legislature of the State of Kansas. Witness had been born in Newcastle, England, and was three years of a?e when he went to America, He had never been naturalised in America, and the question of his nationality had nevet been raised. To Sir John Findlay: He claimed English nationality by reason of his birth-place. John Joseph Kelly, farmer. Te Wera, said ho had been in the United States for about two years, but he had been born in Ireland. Witness was not naturalised in America. Mary Kelly, Te Wera, was his wife. August Ferdinand Lan, farmer, Inglewood. said he had been in New Zealand since 1875, and was now 83 years of age. He had been born in Germany. To Sir .John Findlay: He was naturalised about 27 or '2B years ago. and Mr. Thomson, solicitor, of Inglewood, had bis naturalisation papers. He was the only August Ferdinand Low or Lau living at Inglewood. He had voted at elections for the past 27 years, and always under the name of Lau. John Paul Ilinz. Lepper Road, farmer, said he had been in New Zealand about 43 years, and he was now 50 years of age- He was born in Germany and came out to Now Zealand with his parents. Mary Ilinz was his wife. His father wis naturalised in ISRS, and witness claimed naturalisation through his father. Witness produced his father's naturalisation papers.

| IMPERSONATION NOT ALLEGED. After further legal argument, Sir John Findlay said that Mr. Myers' submissions would tie in order if lie could prove tlint the persons whose numbers were missing from the counterfoils had not the right to vote. Mr. Myers had not alleged that impersonation had taken place. Sir John submitted that Mr. Myers had no right to ask for a. scrutiny of the counterfoils "until lie established that more persons voted than had a right to vote, and that the num'ber -was sufficient to over-weigh Mr. Masters' majority. If that was established, Mr. Myers would be entitled to ascertain who voted and how they voted. Sir John submitted that voters could not be disfranchised owing to the blander of a returning officer. Sir Robert Stout agreed with the contention that the mere fact of a returning officer making a mistake was not sufficient to disfranchise a voter, Mr. Myers submitted that the law made no provision regarding papers with the numbers missing from the counterfoils, but it was laid down by law that it should be possible, on a scrutiny, for every voter to be identified. The irregularity in the present case had prevented this from being done. Presuming that the majority was til', and there were (i2 papers on which there were no numbers, lie? contended that the election must be voided. Mr. Myers asked for a partial scrutiny in order that the matter could be settled one way or the other. If there were only twenty or thirty papers concerned then the matter could be dropped, but if the number was larger then it became an important matter. THE POINT RESERVED. Mr. Justice Chapman: What you are really ashing for is how many such papers there are. Jf the number is not large enough to suit your point, then you will diop it, but if the number exceeds (il, then you suggest that that will be the time for amplifying your motion for a complete scrutiny. Sir John Kiudlay pointed out that the returning officer hart given evidence that every paper used had been issued by a returning officer. Their Honors said that they would deliver their decision at,£ o'clock. Hector Baden .'niith, officer in the Government Statistician's office, Wellington, produced the registration cards of the following aliens:—Paul Miesiek, Jacob Peter Kukiinski, Mary Kuklinski! Bridget Sattler, Lawrence Sattler, Lena Sattier, Anne Steiner. Anthony Wisnewski, Francis Helen Wisnewski, Frank Wisnewski, Mary Wisnewski, Michael Bieloski, and John Schaeffer. In respect of the last two, counsel said further enquiries were being made. Adolph Manov, draper, Stratford, said Jhe* he was a Russian by birth, but a

SCRUTINY OF rotT\TKRFOILS ALLOWED. On resuming after the luncheon adjournment, Sir Robert Stout, said that, lie and Mr. Justice Chapman had aprrceil tn allow an examination of the count crfoils by the returning officer and the registrar, ea-eli party to have a representative present, to ascertain the number of counterfoils which did not hear a number. In making the order it must not he understood that all votine papers without. tlie numbers would be disallowed. Sir John Findlay asked that it should also be a direction to them to ascertain the number also of soldiers or declaration votes. Sir Robert Stout said that this would be included in the order. John Stciner said he was the. husband of Anne Steiner. Ho had been in New Zealand about IS years, and was a naturalised British subject. (Papers produced). Annie ITabowski, wife of John ITabowski, said her husband was horn m Poland, and she was born in New Zealand. Her husband W"s about 50 years of aire, and was not naturalised. This concluded the case for the uetitionerp

At the suggestion of their Honors, MrMyers agreed to supply them at a later time with a list of the voters who were still challenged as aliens, and those wllo had been withdrawn.

THE RESPONDENT'S CASE. SIR JOHN FINDLAY'S ADDRESS. Sir John Findlay, opening for the respondent, said the petition rested on three claims: (1) Corrupt and illegal practices; (i) Impeachment of votes of individuals alleged to be not entitled to vots; (3) Alleged irregularities in connection with the election, and for which Mr. Masters' was hold to be responsible. For the first claim it was alleged that the corrupt practices consisted of providing a free picture entertainment, and also with providing music at a meeting in the Town Hall, In both these cases he contended that it was not bribery, nor was it a corrupt practice, and in support of this contention he quoted Mr. Justice Chapman's judgment in connection with the Wairau petition, on the question of treating. In this judgmnet it was held that treating, such as offering a man a glass of liquor, was not likely to influence his vote by that act. It was further stated that in the case of allegations of corrupt practices, it must be proved in the same way as a criminal charge, and if there were any doubts the respondent should be given the benefit of them. Sir John Findlay referred to the picture entertainment as a trivial matter, and not likely to influence the voters to any extent- The pictures occupied about' a quarter of the programme, an equivalent of 3d worth of pictures and music, and it was ridiculous to suppose ..that 3d worth of entertainment was likely to influence an elector. Sir John Findlay referred in lighter vein to the fact that Mr. Masters bad entered the theatre in the middle of the big drama which was cut oil at an exciting part, to allow Mr. Masters to speak. Sir John Findlay referred to a number of English cases as illustrating his point that the provision of an entertainment was not 'bribery. If Mr. Masters had provided refreshments at the entertainment-, it would be 110 less treating than the screening of a couple of films: but it had been ruled in an English case that the providing of refreshments at election meetings was not treating. Mr. Myers interposed that the authority quoted by counsel contained the words J'except in special circumstances." kSir John Findlay said that, in the case of the picture entertainment, it might have been held to be a means of influencing voters if the entertainments had been given every night. But in Mr. Masters' case tjhe entertainment had- been given once only, and it could not be construed that there had been dny systematic!' attempt to influence rotors by the promise of free picture entertainments every night. There were 110 special circumstances in Mr. Masters' case. Counsel submitted that the authorities he had quoted held that it was perfectly justifiable for a candidate to offer attractions for the purpose of gettiiicr an audience, but such attractions could not be held to influence voters. • PICTURES v. SPEECHES. Sir John Findlay referred to the fact that- Major Hine had practically engaged tiie Town Hall for the night before the election, and lie declined to believe that Major Hine had any grounds for believing that lie could not get. an audience, because of the 3d worth of pictures shown at Mr- Masters' meeting. Next, ■ it was alleged that there was a. payment made by Mr. Musters for the pictures and music. Counsel held that, before it could bo said to lie a corrupt practice, their Honors must, be satisfied that this payment was made for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of Mr. Masters. MrMasters had had to get the picture 1 theatre that night, and lie could get it only by paying the average takings for 1 | the same night for the previous thirteen 1 weeks, and counsel contended that even if the payment was made, it was al- . towed according to the statutes. i Regarding tho irregularities in cov- | nection with tho election, it was laid down in connection with the Bay of Islands election petition that the votes | ■should be disallowed if there was any | defect in the status or title of the voter This included aliens, and petitioners had challenged, m a general way, tho votes of fifty persons on the grounds that ' they wnv aliens. Respondent had re- e criminated that there were a numner £ of persons who voted as aliens who had 1 recorded their votes in favor of Major t H : re. i

Sir John Findlay said he fa'led to agree with Mr. Myers that irregularities due to the blundering of poll clerks worn Aiflicient grounds for upsetting an election He contended that, in connection with all elections, irregularities took place, and one of' the commonest irregularities was the failure of the poll clerk to put the voters number on the ballot papers. ITe submitted that there was not an election in jSfew Zealand ivhi'.h could stand if it was held that the failure of poll clerks to enter trie numbers on the counterfoils was Ru(licirn f ground for upsetting the decision at every election held in "Sew Zealand. MISTAKES AT POOLS. Clause 13 of the petition alleged that there were four papers which 'bore an identification mark, but he submitted that Mr Myers was n,ot pressing this [jart of the petition very seriously, itr.il It was. not of great importance. Another clause in the petition was to the effect that more votes were reeo"ded than the number of voters' names struck oil' the roll. This was a common omission in all polling booths- In fact. sr. common had the omission become l.hat. it had been necessary to pass special legislation authorising electors to vote on declaration, because electors' names had been struck oil' the roll owing to a mistake on the part of the poll clerks at the previous elections keeping no record of those who had voted. With reference to the clauses in the petition asking that the votes of the musicians who had received payment for (heir services at the Town Hall and (hat the votes of the electors present at the picture entertainment, should he disallowed, he had no objection to this if it was held that corrupt practices had been proved, but lie failed to see that the music and the pictures came under the heading of corrupt practices. Sir .John Findlay submitted that never in nnv previous case had it been sought to upset an election on such flimsy grounds as in the present petition. Referring to the music provided at the Town TTall on October 30th., Sir .Tohn Findlay said that this was arranged without any knowledge on Mr. Masters' part. Mr. Macalister, a supporter of Mr. Masters, and possibly a member of his committee, had arranged

with a few other, professional or semiprofessional musicians, to play a "few tunes," and they had gone along- there, not expecting any payment. But Mr. Macalister, out of his own pocket, had paid the other musicians 15s between them.

WHO ORDERED PICTURES? Regarding the picture entertainment, Major Hine had hooked or pencilled the town Hull for the night before the election, and Mr. Masters had decided that he must get a hall us well. He could not at that time get' the Town Hall so he applied to the manager of £he picture theatre for the .use of the theatic only; not for tho pictures and music as well. Subsequently, Mr Masters learned that he would have to pay for the pictures and music if lie wanted them or not, and he reserved the option, not regarding it as a very important matter. On the evening of December 10th., Mr. Masters spoke at Inglewood, and he arrived at the picture theatre at twenty minutes past eight. Evidence would be called to prove that the picture programme did not start until Ave minutes to eight, which narrowed the programme down to half-an-hour. As to the free 'picture entertainment advertisement, Mr. Masters would say that he had not authorised tiie advertisement, and that he had been assured by his secretary that he had not authorised or paid for it. Before the petition, the account had been submitted to Mr. Masters by the Stratford Evening Post, but after the petition had been lodged he had challenged the right of the newspaper to charge the advertisement to him. As a matter of fact, the only payment authorised by Mr. Masters in connection with the matter was the payment of the theatre. Tho manager of the picture theatre was a Mr. Ward, tvho would say that he had no instructions as to providing a picture entertainment, but in the absence of those instructions he had decided to carry on with the pictures and music. Mr. Ward had inserted the advertisement on his own initiative, and had merely handed it in to the newspaper office without leaving any instructions. Sir John Findlay stated that Major Hine had pointed out to him that he had not pencilled the Town Ilali before Mr. Masters had written his first letter making application for the use of the picture theatre. Sir John said he would withdraw his remarks to the effect at that time Mr. Masters could not get tlin Town Hall. EVIDENCE AS. TO ALIENS. Lawrence Sattler, Inglewood, farmer, said he was a son of Matthias Battler, who was naturalised in 1882. I.ena Sattler was his wife and Martin Sattler was his brother. Bridget Mary Sattler was the wife of his brother. Laura Broughton Rutledge, who was challenged on the grounds that she was under ago at the time of the election, submitted proof of her age, showing that she was of age prior to the election. Six witnesses, who were admitted to be naturalised aliens, were examined by Mr. Levi (on behalf of Sir John Kindlav). and gave evidence that they lu;d voted at the election. Adelaide Louise Stcckel, of Midhirst. said she was born in Cliristchurch, bnt her husband had be>';-. hern Ijn the Lnited States. lie had not been naturalised in New Zealand, but she believed that his parents were British. He was not on tho electoral roll. Mr T.ovi mentioned tho casos of two naturalised aliens who had been put on the roll before they had been naturalised. Mr. Myers said lie intended -to eontest the point. 3UTSIIJE EI.l-XTOR.iL BOUNDARY. Heiberl tarley Atkinson, Inglewood tanner, said that Eliza Atkinson, of fountain Road, Inglewood, was his aunt. Iney had formerly been on the Taraia.ci electoral roll, but had been transferred to the Stratford roll Their lames appeared on the Stratford roll mly. Robert Owen Ellis, New Plymouth, ?ave evidence that Eliza Atkinson's ■inn was in the Taranaki county and in nc laranakt electorate, Mr. Levi said that he had culled the -itncsses to prove that the two voters ad been put on the roll i n error and vlipr n 1,1 tile Stratford electorate ' V had no right to do so. or^lslr^ f J ' U , i ' CC,,, Kt ' SiStrar 0f or Stratford, stated that after the Ration ot boundaries he had received 7 l ' U l{egistrar '^raaak, 1 Pp 1 whom he stated had been ransferred to the Stratford electoratele had accepted that list as correct and I >»a placed the people on the roil I Mr Justice Chapman pointed out that ' t electors who were outside the bouulanes would hav e to be struck off the

Mi. Myers said he was inclined to agiee with that view, but until lie had locked up the section of the Act rc"nS>. to matter, he would reserve liia observations. «aK:tdl;^ vetSr Krneßt stoekma ». Tnglewood. gswvw,«-1 in." it w„-t ~y lle been iivSeptember Stl"' Mt t,iere - on K i a " was "Emitted tint ,n 8 1 """ J Wrt;, iypssuva? s Mr. :vnd y,' s t'reir furniture t.i inglewoo'] on Api;.l *r,j-j, *" Tn connection with the ni m "> nf sv-.i liHm In/ram Thomson. it Wft . 11 ' s " am <> photild he struck o(Y the respondent's liat, and Mr. Myers agreed that h t . name of Mabel Ada Thornason should «?o off the roll. tiMnin s tTl i e co " rt a<i -' ourncc! until ifl.HO a.m. to-day.