THE WAIRAU PETITION

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10589, 22 March 1912, Page 5

THE WAIRAU PETITION

CONCLUSION OF EVIDENCE.

MR, SlvKiUlEfrrS ADDRESS

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

BLENHEIM, Last Niglit

Evidence in support of the petition against the election of Mr Richard MtClallum for Wairau was concluded to-day. iMr Skerrett, in addressing the Court, said the charges were founded 0.11 gossip. All that could he insinuated. against McCallum had been done., 'lhe charges worthy of consideration were reduced to three: (1) Treating at Grovetown and Okaiamio ; i2) 'Jiie alleged hiring of conveyances :>u election days; and (3) The alleged payment or promise to Frank Morrison as a o a uvaser between the two ballots. Regarding the treating, Mr Skerreiit said it might be an offence at common law, but not a single offence at common kuv had been proved in this case. There was no evidence of corrupt treating or excessive drinking. McCallum was not the host, and any demonstration in litis favour was a mere incident of t'he election meetI ing. Nothing was hidden at the first ballot. Oin the day after the Grovetown incident Mr McCallum was a.n tin successful candidate. Re the allegation's cf payment or contracting for payment for the hire of vehicles on election days, there was no evidence I on oath that payment was made on a contract for payment for the use j of the McKenzie vehicles, I and the account was repudiated immediately it was sent in. The same argument applied in reference to I the alleged payment to Morrison, | there was no evidence on oath that |he was paid or promised paymentRegarding his statement about receiving £1 per d'ay, it was evident that Morrison' was running with the hare and hunting with the hounds, j Mr Skerrett contended' that there was J no evidence to connect Ml* MjcCallum j witlh the Seddon, Mirza, or Grove | Road liquor episodes. Mr Sinclair said' the Grovetown incident occurred two hours before the commencement of polling day. He -quoted a case in 1869 in support of •his contention that the election- must be voided. He contended thai Sadd'is evidence that McCallum said, "We'll lower Sutherland's pocket," proved the petitioners' ca-se up to the h' . . The non-payimen'.. for drinks at once stamped it as an election , off- , ence. Regarding the Grove Road, episode, Dod«on admitrted 'that the beer was in McCaMum's office on the day of the "first ballot, and Bodison supplied liquor to electors. Hyndman testified that the number of voters under the influence of liquor came into the ■booth. In conneciuon! with the McKenxie Carrying Company case, MoGaHum dealt witih tiho Company, and must haw known that it was not the manager's place to give away the use of vehicles and men to the extent of j £330. Hogan also inourrod debits for the Company t>o pay, and referred tile account to Maoev, who repudiated it because a petition had been lodged; In reference to Parker's cars, counsel contended, that it- was proved that Piarker made £4 from the use of McCallum's car. That was equivalent tto McCallum paying £4 for the use of one of Parker's cars. Counsel next dealt with Morrison's charges. Mor-' rison had consulted witfe Mr Wiffen, his former employee, ' to whether he should, accept £1 per day. He ad- ! mitted' to another man that lie had done well out of the election!, and had received £1 per day.

Judge Chapman: Hits anyone given evidence of such-a contract ?

Mr Sinclair: No; we have only Morrison's statement.' In regard-to-' the supply of beer at Mirza, lie-asked ( v-vhv was the entry ju Dodson'-s book j in MeCallum's nfime? Why had the I Dctlscn Company touched money for/ the beer ? - ■ ■ - Sir JVr'hua Williams: But the beer was supplied after the election. Mr Sinclair said he was suspicious that the money lay unclaimed. As to the Seddon episode, Humphreys was shown to be a supporter. of MeCal-i lum, and he supplied liquor on polling day. In reference w-i Okaraimo, if Mr.Wiiffen did wrong in "shouting" for electors, this did not excuse Mr McCallum. If their Honors were of opinion that Best charged McCallum for the U'ffe of his car, it would be evidence of a corrupt practice, and provide grounds for a fresh .petition. .. The Court ad.jour.nkl till 5 p.m. on Friday. Their Honors intimated that it was \ nfot certain whether they won Id i)C able to deliver judgment