A PARTISAN JUDGE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10742, 12 July 1906, Page 4

A PARTISAN JUDGE.

disproof of the larger charges, no doubt guided Mr Justice Grantham to his conclusion that to invalidate the election would be "oppressive m an enlightened age." Bilker 8 object still remains a matter of obscurity. His story was of tho flimsiest nature. Whether his bribery was a "plant" devised by mischievous persons on the other side, whether he was as Avild- brained as he professed to be, or whether, according to Mr Justice Grantham's suggestion, he was anxious to make Yarmouth famous for its election petitions may remain a speculation for the curious. ___

CAMPAIGN OF EX- NEW ZEALANDKR, Referring to the cablegrams of the past few days regarding Mr Justice Grantham, the N.Z. 'limes gives some further particulars: — The member for Groat Yarmouth is Mr Arthur Fell, Unionist (formerly of New Zealand, and brother of Dr Fell, of Wellington). A petition was lodged against his election, allegations of bribery being made. The hearing lasted several days, and 'great interest Avas taken m the proceedings, which ended on May 4th m the dismissal of tlie petition. Serious allegations of partisanship Avere made against Mi- Justice Grantham, avlio, with Mr Justice Channell, conducted the enquiry. Last month, m delivering judgment m another similar case (m which the Hon. T. C. Agar Robartes was unseated owing to corrupt practices), Mr Justice Grantham complained' bitterly of the unfairness of the Government m not insisting on proof of his alleged partisanship at the Yarmouth trial, or else withdrawing the charges. •As the judges left the Court they were hooted by a Liberal crowd, A-vliich also attacked a Conservative agent. In dismissing the petition against MiFell's election, Mr Justice Grantham said the charge of having inaugurated an "orgy" m order to influence votes Avas the most baseless charge he had ever heard of. There was absolutely not the slightest foundation for the charge. Commenting on the Yarmouth proceedings the London Times of May sth says : The trial of the Yarmouth election petition has come to a curious conclusion. Mr Justice Grantham and Mr Justice Cliannell, avlio heard the case, were unable to agree completely m their judgment, and the petition against Mr Fell, the sitting Unionist member, has been accordingly dismissed. On the question of corrupt treating, which may fairly be regarded as the larger question, the two judges concurred. They held that tho various instances of this Avhich were alleged against. Mr Fell could not be sustained. It had been averred that, since Mr Fell began to cultivate the constituency m 1904, he had systematically carried on a series of election meetings m public houses, and there was one particular "orgy" at the Yarmouth Town Hall on October 19, 1906, which bulked largely m the indictment. Tlus Avas apparently designed as a modest and strictly temperattce entertainment, at which the people of Yarmouth might have an opportunity of meeting Sir John Colomb, avlio sat as Unionist member for the borough up to the time of last election. Mr Fell's caterer, however, apparently knew tho townsfolk better than Mr Fell himself, and, contrary to the Unionist candidate's intentions, provided whisky, at which two dozen bottles, estimated at 336 drinks, were consumed. This record does credit to the conviviality of Yarmouth, but Mr Justice Channell, while observing that it came, "very near the line," did not hold Mr Fell responsible or consider it to be corrupt treating. So with the ward meetings, which were held chiefly m public-houses, where drinking without payment was going on. The evidence did not show that the people serving out drinks were agents of Mr Fell, or that the main object of giving them was to influence votes rather than to attract an audience. On these charges,' therefore, the judges agreed m exonerating Mr Fell. The point of difference between them arose out of an incident of bribery during the election, which Mr Justice Channell not unfairly described as "mysterious and obscure." On the polling day a man named Baker gave away money to some 15 persons m small sums of a shilling or half-a-crown. He was not a worker for Mr Fell, and quite unknown to his election agent and other active supporters. But on the morning of the election he got hold of a vehicle used by tlie party, and Avitli it brought up voters to the poll. Baker himself told an extraordinary story when he was called into the A\ntness-box by Mr Justice Granthain, declaring that he was excited and did not know if he Avas doing right or wrong, that he igave money to the men because they Avere out of work, and that he had no politics. The rumor that he was bribing got about m the course of the morning, and he was taxed with tliis by Mr Nutman, a magistrate and alderman, and chairman of the Unionist conveyances committee. Baker strenuously denied it, and Nutman did not interfere Avith him further. After sifting the evidence, the judges are, however, satisfied that he did bribe m the instances mentioned, and the only question is as to Mr Fell's responsibility. Was Baker un agent of the Unionist candidate? Mr Fell liad desired and expressed liis desire that there should be an absolutely pure dec-, tion. Mr Justice Grantham is of opinion that it would be cruel to hold him responsible for Baker's acts on election day. He considered that there was not sufficient proof of Baker's agency, and that if one of Mr Fell' 6 sub-agents showed a "sudden Avant- of judgment" m not stopf>ing Baker, that could not make. Mr Fell iable or his election void. Mr Justice Channell, on the other hand, is clear m tlie opposite, dnection. While accepting Mr Fell's assurances, and admitting the liardship, he liolds that Baker's action most clearly came within the principles of the law of agency. If Mr Justice Channell's judgment 6tood alone, therefore, the election would have to be set aside on the ground of Baker's bribery. As Mr Justice Grantham, the senior judge, differs, it holds good, though the refusal of costs to Mr Fell shows that, m Mr Justice Channell's Avoids, he escaped only "by the skin of his teeth." On the point of law, we must own that Mr Justice Channell's argument seems to us the more convincing. But >Mr Justice Channell hiiaself admitted that Ba> ker's acts were contrary to Mr"' Fell's wishes, and this fact, coupled with the ,