THE WAIRAU PETITION

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10588, 20 March 1912, Page 5

THE WAIRAU PETITION

FURTHER EVIDENCE. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) BLENHEIM, Last Night. [ The Election Court this morning ro- | sumed tho hearing of the petition i against the election of Richard McCallum as member for Wairau. William Humphreys, secretary of ] the McKenzie Carrying Company, continuing his evidence regarding' the movements of tho Company's vehicles on election day, said a substitution of the name of Macey, chairman of McCallum's genera] committee, for Sutherland, chairman of the Grovetown committee, was made in an instruction to Hogan, then-manager for the company.

1 James Frank ixosworthy, chairman j of Directors of the McKenzie Carrying Company, said no proposition was made to the Company during the last six months to supply vehicles free to anybody. Hogan, the manager, left the Company's services of his own accord on March 2nd. Neither Macey nor McCallum saw witness with reference to the account for £3O 6s 6d. for hire of vehicles. Witness instructed the Company's solicitor to examine the books for December,-.as the?!secretary desired to he perfectly clear garding the -account, which Macey disputed, as he knew'th^. Company.,wrpuld be subpoenaed'.' ■ in4 structed Hogan or Sny other employee : to- give '■ 'Veilteles- grat'uitosuly . McCallum. In, akiswer ..Mf witness said no action had been taken with regard to sueing Macey for the unpaid account. Mr Hogan, in reply to Mr.Skerrett, said none of the Directors had <so far complained to him regarding the'supplying of vehicles free on election days.' He did not know an account for* hire had been rendered till afterwards. After Macey returned the account, McCallum saw .witness and complained that the account was a mistake. He reminded witness that herhad given him the use of the vehicles he's. Witness admit ted that the account was a mistake, and promised to attend to it. 1

Re-examined, witness said he did not inform the Directors of McCalluni's complaint. On the books being referred to a solicitor, the latter advised that they be left unaltered. Witness never suggested that the books be altered.

Mr Hogan, replying to Mr Sinclair, feaid the reason why he did not report to the Directors that he had givtcn the vehicles to McGallum free of tohargo was not that he knew ho knew he would be instantly dismissed. The time:.had not arrived for him to do so. Ho had not received any premise of payment from McCallum, Mateey, or Bull. He had not approached \McCallum or his partner (Mills) in regard to-financial support to assist him lin taking over the business of the McKenzie Carrying Company. H© told both the other candidates at the first iballot that they could have traps if they wanted them. The licensed victuallers and No-license League hired traps, for which they paid.

William John Roach, foreman in the McKenzio Carrying Company'-s istables, said he made- entries of the vehicles to Macey on Hogan'& instructions.

James F. Michalannoy, livery stable keeper, said on the day of tho second iballot he hired two vehicles to the McKonzie Carrying Co. Hogan asked ifor them. Witness charged £2 10s for one, and £1 10s for the other. He had not yet been paid. Hogan and Humphreys told him to r&ad?r the account to Macey, and it would be paid lat-er on. He did not send it to Mace > T - . . , George P. Rogers, solicitor to the Carrying Company, said he.was consulted regarding the books during the last week or two.

Counsel for the petitioners : On what point were you asked to advise? Mr Skerrett objected. His friend was asking witness to disclose business hetnveen himself and a client. Mr Sinclair claimed that there was no privilege in this court, quoting aB his authority section 202 of the Legislature Act.

Their Honours over-ruled Mr Sinclair's contention. Judge Williams said if one of the duties of a solicitor was more sacred •than another, it was that of not divulging what took place between himself and a client. The section quoted did not release a .solicitor from his duty not to divulge advice given by him to a client. This concluded the case regarding the Carrying Company. Mr Sinclair then went on to the

case in which McCallum was charged with making a contract for payment on account of the conveyance of electors to and from the poll for the purpose of promoting his election with Edward Stone Parker, motor car proprietor. He called E. S. Parker, who testified that he had five motor cars on the. day of the first ballot. He lent three cars to McCallum for part of the day, at McCallum's request, made in May of last year. McCallum explained to him that he could not pay for the cars. On November 22nd McCallum lent him his motor, and he (witness) made thirty shillings out of its use. McCallum had not bespoken his cars for "another election if such took place within twelve months." To Mr Skerrett: There was a misunderstanding regarding the first agreement. He promised to lend McCallum cars for the election, and considered he had fulfilled his obligation by lending the cars at the first ballot. Mr Duncan's secretaries came-to him, and he promised them for the second {ballot. Shortly afterwards Bull, McCallum' s scretary) came to him and reminded him that he had promised to lend tho cars to McCallum for the election. Witness replied "For December 7th." They then argued as to ■what the word "election" meant. Bull finally convinced him that the election meant both ballots, and he agreed to let him have the cars. He sent word to Mr Duncan's secretaries that he could not abide ..by.-his-• promise- to them. ->There" was no promise of pay-, raient, or a secret understanding with! McCallum, and no payment was ; made j by- McCallum ' either '.-directly; sst. : nidik j jjectly,'. ">Witnes s' said that. 'about* *a | ■week..ago he '-went office of Mr • .Sinclair,; :petitioner's'c6.uriseli .to/ giye : tea*message:'- Mr Sinclair had ask- '■ ed to see the McKenzie Carrying Co.'s books, and that they should see their solicitors. He gave Mr Sinclair the solicitor's reply. Mr Sinclair then Spoke of witness' evidence. He said that if he did not give evidence that lie had hired the, cars to McCallum he (Sinclair) would see witness, got tlrree years on the road. Witness considered it was said to intimidate him. To Mr Sinclair: Counsel did not say to him that the punishment for perjury would be three years. He be- ; lievedthat Mr Sinclair said that if ■witness mad© ah incorrect statement he would be prosecuted for perjury.

Douglas Galloway, motor driver in Parker's employ, said he saw Sinclair" ;on Monday afternoon, and asked him if Branton (another driver) could be called on Tuesday, as he wanted to< go to Nelson. Mr Sinclair said that if Branton and wUjiofk made certain admissions both could <?o. It appeared to witness that Sinclair wanted him to admit that he was. driving for Mc■Callum for hire on election day. Sinclair said to him that it was ridiculous to think that Parker was letting cars to MeCajlum for nothing. Arthur Wiffen, grain merchant, one of the candidates at the recent, election, said that before the election Parker told him he could not let him have any cars on election day, as he had promised them to McCallum. The latter had arranged to lend him (Parker) his own car in the meantime, •and on one occasion he made four pounds out of it. Replying to Mr Skerrett, witness said that there were only three places at which, during the election campaign, he did not shout, and at those places there were no hotels. He did not think he ,wa_ thereby improperly influencing votes. A crowd always gathered round when he was shouting for a couple of friends r< The. case, at this stage, was adjourned until ten o'clock next day.