WAIRAU ELECTION PETITION

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10587, 19 March 1912, Page 7

WAIRAU ELECTION PETITION

OPENING OF THE ENQUIRY.

(By Telegraph —Press Association.J BLENHEIM, Last Night. The hearing of the petition against the return of Richard iMcCallum as member for Wairau was commenced this morning, before Judges Williams and Chapman. Mr Sinclair is appearing for the petitioners, and Mr Skerrett, K.C., and Mr Mills for the respondent. The petition consists of 27 clauses containing allegations of bribery, treating, and other corrupt and illegal practices. Two allegations of charging the supporters of the respondent with importuning the electors to "vote for .MoOalluin" have been withdrawn, and leave was asked to introduce two test ones of bribery and treating. This point was reserved. Mr Skerrett, in cross-examining a -witness in the charge in respect to drinking at Groveia.vu, sought to show that it was customary, after meetings and entertainments in the (Grovetown .Hall, for the male resid-j ents to go to the hotel for a drink be-' fore going home. , The witnesses admitting that this was so, this concluded the evidence in the Grove town charge, with the exception of one witness, who was not present. Mr Sinclair then proceeded with the , charge that on the day of the first ballot large quantities of liquor were supplied to the electors at a grain store in Grove Road, Blenheim, by It.

McCallum, or his agents, for the purpose of inducing such electors to vote for Mc€allum. The store is.owned by McCallum Bros., and is in the same grounds as the polling booth. John Hyndmau, scrutineer for Mr Duncan, one of the candidates, said that many electors who visited the booth appeared to be under the influence of liquor. .Witness went to the door of the booth and saw a crowd of men round about the grain store, talking loudly, their voices being heard in the booth.

Archibald McCallum, brother of the respondent, in reply to Mr Skerrett, said that some days previous to the first ballot he met l'\ Dodson, aerated water manufacturer and brewer. He told Dodson he could use his office and telephone in the grain store in connectiou with the licensing poll. He saw no drink or drinkrjo; on the morning of the first ballot. In the afternoon he saw some liquor and empty bottles in the office. He was no party to supplying or paying for_"the TioT~ that day, and hid horie hijmgelf. . He denied that, gave'" anybody: '5 buy drink for electors, directly or indirectly, at Mirza, or e'Jsewhere' (clause 10 of the petition stated' that between the first and second ballots A. McCallum gave certain electors at Mirza money to buy, liquor "in order to treat and bribe such electors to vote for the said Richard McCallum.") In answer to Mr Sinclair, witness denied that he was severely crossexamined at a no-license meeting about- liquor being in his grain store. The 'No-license League did not express disapproval of liquor having been at g his office. He did not know who g brought the liquor to the store. Mr 1 iDodson was at one of the meetings K of Mr Richard McCallum's committee. ■ /Mr Dodson was at the grain r>tore i practically all the day. t Frank Dodson, (brewer, said he attended two of McCallum"s committee meetings. He was not working for McCallum's return. He took no beer to McCallum Bros.' grain store on the day of tho first iballot. He to&k no f beer to the store, but got some from ail employee of the Marlborough i "Brewery, opposite the flour mill, and J in company with four others drank 1 it. He saw no second supply brought j over later in the day. He was not acting on ibehalf of the licensed victuallers when he secured the beer. No ;women were supplied with liquor at the grain store during the day. Tom J. Ball, an employee of the Marlborough Brewery, said that after 1 lunch on the day of the first ballot, iDodson asked him to bring over some •beer to A. McCallum-' s_ office. A fel-low-employee named Hendra carried the ibeer over, and several participated in it. To his knowledge, no second supply of beer was obtained from the Marlborough Brewery. Edward Vincent Stace, who acted as { Deputy Returning Officer at the Grove Road polling booth on the day of the'first ballot, said he noticed albont- half a dozen electors under the influence of liquor at the booth. This concluded the evidence on the Grove Road charge. Rosina Innes, wife of the licensee of the iGrovetown Hote', said about fifty men had drink at the hotel on , the' night of December 6th, after Mr MeCalfum's meeting. Some weeks afterwards John Sutherland, who was chairman of MeCallum's committee and chairman of the meeting, paid . twenty-five shillings-for the drinks. The other candidates, aitor tiieir meetings, mid for drinks for friends. In regard to the charge.of making contracts for payment of an account for the conveyance of electors to and from the noli 'on both polling days ioi the purpose of promoting McCallum s election. William Humphreys, secretary of the McKenzie Carrying ComWnv, produced his books, showing a list of vehicles hired by Mr Macey, general chairman of Mr McCallum s Committee, on .the. days ol the first and second ballots, and the prices paid, amounting to £3O 16s 6d. He consulted the then manager (Mr Hogan) before sending out tho account, which Maeev returned on January 2oth, with the words, "I know nothing of this." Mr McCallum objected to pav the account. He did not hear him tell .Hoiraii that the vehicles had been given free for election clays, and j lie would not pay. _ The Court adjourned at o p.m. till 10 a.m. to-morrow.

.•i