THE STRATFORD SEAT.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 March 1920, Page 6

THE STRATFORD SEAT.

PETITION AGAINST THE ELECTION THE HEARING CONCLUDED. DECISION PROBABLE TO-DAY. Tie hearing of the Stratford election petition was concluded at Stratford yesterday. It is possible the decision will be given to-day. The ease 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 land music prior to an address delivered on December 16, and also that a large number of persons who voted for Masters were not entitled to be registered as voters. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Mr. Justice Chapman presided. Mr. It Myers appeared on behalf of the petitioners (Messrs W. H. H. Young, George Hall, and J. B. Hine); and Sir John Findlay, K.C., represented Mr. Masters.

EXAMINATION OF COUNTERFOILS. A report showing the result of the examination of the counterfoils was put in by the Registrar of the Court. The examination showed that there were 22 counterfoils without roll numbers. Of these eleven were ordinary cases, nine were soldiers' votes unsupported by written applications, as required by the Act, and two soldiers' votes supported by applications. Mr Justice Chapman remarked that the report meant that what wis required by the Act in regard to soldiers' votes had not been complied with. Paul Biesich and Jacob Peter Kuklinski were examined as to naturalisation and their names were struck off the list of objectors. Sir John Pindlay said that he had several more witnesses, who were alleged tc be aliens or were not entitled tcvotc on account of other disqualifications, and who they believed had voted for Major Hine, but as the number was insufficient to deprive Mr. Masters of his majority, he did not think it was worth while going on with them. If his friend was given all the advantage and was allowed all the votes of -those whose votine papers had no numbers on the counterfoils and the four musicians, Mr- Masters would still have a majority of 16. Mr. Myers admitted this, and said that the petition now hung on the question of corrupt or illegal practice. He claimed, however, the right to make use of the closeness of the election. He was prepared to admit that of the 22 votes with no numbers on the counterfoils some may have been for Major Hine. William John McCord, Matau, farmer, .said h e a ' so had a farm at Kiwitea, and he spent half his time on each. He did not know if he was on the Oroua ( roll. MORE ABOUT MUSIC. . Sir John Findlay produced witness' application for enrolment in the Stratford electorate, and challenged witness that his statement that he had resided in the electorate for which he was claiming enrolment, for three months prior to his application, was untrue. Witness reiterated that he was entitled to state that he had been three months-in the electorate on account of his frequent visits to Matau. Prior to the last election he had always voted in the Oroua electorate. James Macaliater, photographer, residing at Stratford, said he was an aimtteur musician. Regarding Mr. Masters' meeting in the Town Hall on October 30th., witness had suggested to Mr. Fox that some music would be acceptable before Mr. Masters spoke, and asked if Mr. Fox could arrange for one or two players. Mr. Fox agreed to do this. Nothing was said or suggested about payment at that time. It was entirely his own idea to have the orchestra, and Mr. Masters knew nothing about it until witness mentioned it afterwards, and nothing was said to Mr. Masters about. payment. Two or three days after the meeting witness saw Mr. Fox and asked him if he intended to make any charge. Mr. Fox said that he didn't think so, but afterwards witness paid the other musicians 5s each. Mr. Masters knew nothing about the payment. To Mr. Myers: On his suggestion Fox had given him a receipt (produced) dated November 3, the day on which the payment was made. ■■ Mr. Justice Chapman asked witness what it was that put the idea into his head that it would be advisable to get the* receipt. Witness replied that when he heard that investigations were being made he thought there might be trouble, and considered it best to get the receipt. . Mr. Myers put it to witness that he had obtained the receipt because Fox had told him that he had said to Young that he had been paid by Mr. Gardiner. Witness: That had no influence with me at all. MR. MASTERS' SECRETARY. Henry Gardiner, Stratford, an employee of Masters' Ltd., said he was secretary of Mr. Masters' election committee- Witness did all the business connected with Mr. Masters' campaign, and he certified all the accounts. He had not seen the paper containing the advertisement \about the free picture entertainment until it was shown to him by counsel. He had discussed the advertisement with Mr. Ward, manager of the theatre, and had told him that lie did not think it necessary to advertise the free pictures, as lie thought Mr. Masters would get an audience in any case. He had told Mr. Ward that the matter was in his hands if he wished to advertise or not, and suggested that it might be a good thing for the picture company if they advertised, because many people would see the programme who did not usually go to pictures. T!\e first time he had seen the advertisement was about three weeks ago, when Mr. Masters had come to him with a clipping and said, "You've nearly put me in a pretty mess, paying for the advertisement about free pictures."

With regard to the meeting in the Town Hall on October 30th., witness had hired the hall- He had heard that there would be some music, but he had nothing to do with it whatever. He heart! tiiis a day or two before the meeting, but could not say who had told him. It was more of a rumor than anything else. To Mr. Myers: Witness engaged most of the halls, and he engaged tlie Town Hall for October 30. Mr. Masters had engaged the picture thyjat!re> himself. Mr. Hine had the Town Hall pencilled for the last two or three nights before the election. This was before the writ was issued. Witness went, himself to pencil "the Town Hall, but he found that Mr. Hine had alrealy pencilled it. Witness left the matter at that. On the night of December Hi he arrived at the picture theatre about half-past eight. He presumed that the picture people were looking after the theatre that night. Witness was not Mr. Masters' caretaker. H e had pointed out to Mr. Ward the advantages of advertising the free pictures, for the benefit the theatre would get, but he thought that Mr Masters would get a full house without the attraction of the pictures. The advantages of advertising the free pictures, which he lmd pointed out to Mr. Ward,, were that there was a certain class of people who did not usually frequent pictures and they might come along to see the class of programme which was put on at the theatre. PAYMENT OF ADVERTISEMENT.

To the Chief Justice: He had not seen the free picture advertisement until Mr. Masters sh<; vcd him a cutting about three weeks ago. Mr. Myers put it 'to witness that he had previously seen the local referring to the free pictures. Witness: I can't swear whether I did or not. The Chief Justice pointed out thftt the' petitioners were not relying on the payment of the advertisement. They were relying on the payment of the orchestra and for the pictures- His Honor said that the advertisement did not matter one way or the other. Mr. Myers said that he- replied on the* payment of the advertisement to snow the respondent's intent to offer free pictures and music. The Chi.-f Justice coined out that the question of the advertisement was not of any importance, although hoth Mr. Myers and Sir John Findlay had wasted considerable time over it. Sir John Findlay: That sort of waste of time will be avoided when thought reading is advanced a little further. (Laughter). When Mr. Myers had concluded his cross-examination of the witness Sir John Findlay intimated that in view of his Honor's ruling about the advertisement he would like a little time to consider what to do with some of his witnesses. Om resuming after the luncheon adjournment, Sir John Findlay said that after his Honor the Chief justice's observations respecting the advertisement, he had decided to eliminate several of his witnesses, thereby shortening the ease still further. Lewis Edgar Reid, Stratford, operator at the Kind's Cinema Theatre, described what took plane on the evenine of December IC.

ROBERT MASTERS' EVIDENCE. The respondent, Robert Masters, said that ail he knew about the music at the Town Hall meeting on October 30 was that he heard the orchestra was goin" to play and that they did play. He did not hear the orchestra play. Mr. Macalister had mentioned to him that he thought, some music would be a good thing to keep the crowd in a good humor until he came. Sir .John Findlay: Were they in a good humor? Respondent: Beautiful! (Laughter). Continuing witness said that when he engaged the picture theatre he had not made any arrangements about music and pictures being provided, hut he was told that he .would have to pay the aver'age takings of the previous thirteen Tuesday nights in order to obtain the Jise of the theatre, whether he had the pictures and music or not Regarding the "free picture advertisement" lie had i not seen it in the Stratford EveninoPost prior to the meeting. a Mr. Myers read a special paragraph from the Stratford Evenins Post of October 30, in which it was stated that Mr. Masters would reply at the Town Hall that night to, certain statements made by his opponent, and further that an orchestra of seven players would play before Mr. Masters spoke. Witness replied that he may or may not have seen the paragraph in the paper, but ho had not supplied- the information to the paper. He had never objected to the orchestra playing at the Town Hall meeting. I To Sir' John Findlay: He had nothing to do with the paragraph in (he paper about the Town Hall meeting: the inI formation may have been supplied by I his secretary. Mr. yar-alister had never *old him there were to be esvsn per-

formers in the orchestra. This concluded the evidenceCOUNSELS' ADDRESSES. Sir John Findlay, speaking of the picture entertainment, said that it must be conceded from the English authorities lie had quoted that to give a form of entertainment for the purpose of getting an audience was not bribery and not corrupt practice. The charge of illegal or corrupt practice or bribery was such a grave charge that the evidence of the intention must be at least as strong as their Honors would demand in' a criminal prosecution. Mr. Masters' application had not been for the pictures, but for the theatre. He submitted that the orchestra in the case was not a biiuj, and he quoted authorities to show chat it was idle I to contend that the orchestra could be regarded as a band. Section 220 of the Act' i laid it down that no payment should bo j i made to a band for the procuration of or 1 for procuring the election of a candidate, and he submitted that it was not likely that the provision of the orchestra at the Town Hall meeting was going to influence voters to vote for Mr. Masters. Mr. Myers drew their Honors' attention to the provisions of section 213 of the Act, to show tliat if a candidate was proved to have been guilty of illegal practices, he must be disqualified. He desired to emphasise that a candidate had to bear the brunt of the actions of his agents, and he cited cn =:s in support of this contention. Vl£ this he had not pressed the poiff; to whether tin payment of the or< jj fc! , „!•& for the Town Hall meeting was made 6y Mr. Masters himself, his secretary, or Mr. Macalister, a member of Mr. Masters' executive committee, because, in either case, Mr. Masters must be held to be responsible for the payment. His submission was that Mr. Macalister was an agent of Mr. Masters, and also that Mr. Ward was an agent of Mr. Masters. Mr. Myers said that Mr. Masters had commenced his candidature not later than October 14, and he submitted that an illegal act was committed on October 30th. The election had commenced despite the fact that the writ had not been issued. Counsel further submitted that the giving of an entertainment, although it may not be treating within section 210 of the Act, for the reason that it was not given on the polling day, may nevertheless still be a corrupt practice within the meaning of the common law of Parliament. It was on that principle; that lie claimed th*t the practice on December 10th was a corrupt practice on the grounds that it was :: species of bribery.

IS MUSIC BRIBERY? Sir Robert Stout: Do you contend that these pictures and music can be held to be bribery! Mr. Myers: Yes, I do. lam relying on the common law of Parliament. Sir Robert Stout: The common law of Parliament won't help you in this case. Replying to the Chief Justice, Mr. Myers said he had never heard of any eate in which the provision of music was hels to be bribery. Counsel further contended that the value of the entertainment was of no importance. It was an entertainment given" to the people en masse, and as such was a corrupt practice on the night before the election. Referring to the orchestra, lie again contended that it was a band within, the meaning of the Act. Mr. Justice Chapman: Wouldn't it require some stretching to call this orchestra a band? Mr. Myers: Possibly, in a place like Stratford, it would be called a band. (Laughter). The Chief Justice remarked that there was no contract made between and Vox regarding payment for the orchestra. Mr. Myers replied that his contention was that there was an implied promise that payment would be made. At 5 p.m. their Honors adjourned the Court until 3 p.m. to-day.