THE WAIRAU PETITION

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10591, 25 March 1912, Page 5

THE WAIRAU PETITION

DISMISSED BY THE COURT. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) j BLENHEIM, Last Night. , Judgment ia tho Wairau election, petition was delivered at noon on Saturday. The judgment commenced by pointing out that a commission., on; corrupt or illegal practice involved serious penal consequences— the disqualification from holding any public or judicial office. In order to establish guilt the same degree of proof /was required as in ordinary criminal cases. The evidence must be such as would exclude the reasonable possibility of innocence. The Court heJd that the riharge against Wright, in regard to making a bet of £3O, was irrelevant to the enquiry. No evidence was offered in support of the allegation that MoLauchlan, who watS stated to be an agent of McOallum, had made several bets on tfoe_ result,

or in support of the allegation that Humphreys was engaged as a canvasser. The charges, therefore, which the court had to consider were -charges of treating; of contracting for payment on account of the poniveyance of voters to the poll ;of expenditure on the election in excess of the amount inirolved by the Act; and in i respect of the engagement of Morri- [ son. There was absolutely no evij dence in , support, of the allegation that A. ; McCallum gave certain electors imoney to-buy. liquor ,for treating ( the ; ©lectern at ''jSGrza;',. There "was 'I upoK .wfeichat could. be-VeaMiraßly in-. : tfert-ed- thati according prmci- ' .plets: of-election Hiimphrey?i ? was the agent of McCallum, or that he was any more than a voluntary worker on the Liberal side. In respect to the liquor at Grove Road, the evidence justified /the conclusion that it was not brought there or used for purposes of the Parliamentary election; hut in connection' with the licensing poll. There was nothing to show that A. McCallum had anything to do avitli the liquor, through his office. Dealing with the charges

I of treating at Grovetown and Okar£raio, they were the only-instances prov J ved against respondent of supplying- ' liquor during the whole of his electoral campaign, in the course of which he had delivered forty-two addresses. There could be I no suggestion that the supplying of-liquor on these twb occasions was part of a scheme iof ti'eating with, a view to influencing the electors generally. The circumstances attending the fjupplying". .of drink at Grovetown. were not sufficient to.-show .that'drink was supplied.. : by ."Sutherland with the' intention either on his part, or- on. the part.vof/ . MiGallum of influencing the result .Of . the 1 elction or the votes of the electors. . The charged in respect to the alleged; making of contracts for the hire of vehicles had given, rise to some difficulty. Referring to the use ; of Parker's cars, the judgment' says that McCallutm was not seriously attacked as to his/veracity. fie appeared to the Court to give his evidence candidly. Their Honours saw no reasoni to doubt 'that he gave.it truthfully. If his version of this arrangement was accepted, and they did accept it as tnie, they found Parker's substantially the same. There was therefore no evidence in support of the. charge. In regard to the use of Best's cars, the Court saw . no reason to doubt the truth of the respondent's evidence. The alleged. " 'hire of vehicles from the .McKehzrie Carrying Company occupied the at•tentionof .tile ©>urt •a I very long time. It.was objected that Hogan (the Company's manager), had no ■authority, actual or presumed, to enter into an arrangement to gi ye the use of vehicles gratuitously. The Court ■was satisfied that, iso long as he honestly, a person in respondent's position was not bound, to look beyond Hogan in; any arrangement he might make. They were satisfied, upon the respondent's own evidence, confirmed by Hogan's, that' the respondent nev-

er iniended '-.to make a contract,. or-, in-, any 'way to .render himself liable to pay for. vehicles. In discussing'the charge regaining"excessive election .expenses, their Honours said: "It might have been expected that the petitioners woiild have shown some foundation for the grave and specific charges set out in the particulars. It is in a .high degree improper that serious charges should he made without . •some solid ground in support tliem." In respect to the- charges... as to the employment of Frank Morrison for payment, the petitioners' case was supported by unsworn statements, and circumstance® giving rise to suspicion. The respondents case rested upon the swom. testimony of all person® implicated, contradicting the un&TTom statements of Morrison, and : also by considerations which to . some extent- weakened the circumstances of suspicion. Where, on one side, ■ there was sworn evidence of personswhose characters were not impeached, and on the other unsworn statements and suspicious circumstances, the former must prevail. The charges relating to Morrison had not been made out. "In conclusion," said the Judges, "we are off opinion that the case .for the petitioners has failed, and. that Mr Richard McCallum has been duly elected. We shall report accordingly to the Hon. the Speaker. The Court orders that the petitioners pay the respondent the costs- of. and incidental to the petition and the trial thereof, to be taxed by the' Registrar pursuant to rules."