WAIRAU PETITION.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 71, 22 March 1912, Page 7

WAIRAU PETITION.

TREATING AT ELECTIONS.

LENGTHY HEARING ENDED.

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.)

BI,ENHEIM, Thursday. The hearing of the petition against tiie election of Mr. E. MeCallum as M.P. for Wairau was continued to-day. Mr. Sinclair represented the petitioners, and Mr. Skerrett appeared for Mr. MeCallum. Patrick Meehan stated that Humphreys said to him that he was not looking after a polling booth this titne, as he was bettor paid by not touching one. Joseph William Humphreys denied receiving payment or a promise of payment for services rendered to Mr. MeCallum in regard to the election. He denied having canvassed for Mr. MeCallum at either ballot. lie said, there weTe twelve bottles of beer and one of whisky in the Seddon Town Hall on election day. The whiisky was stolen by the Reform party: The liquor was obtained by a party of five friends, and was not for general consumption. Alexander Birrpe. contractor, said he worked on the railway works at Mirza

in December last, lie knew there was beer there after the second ballot. He heard it said that the beer came from the schoolmaster at Seddon (Humphreys) who was reti.ing, and wanted the boys to have a drink. McCALLUM'S SECRETARY. Tasman Frank Bull said he acted as secretary for Mr. at the late

election. He received no payment for his work. There was no promise of payment. He produced a bank book to show that Mr. McCallum had paid him several amounts to pay out where necessary. The statement produced represented all the money paid by Mr. McCallum and disbursed by witness for election expenses. All the disbursements were properly returned by Mr. McCallum to the registrar. Hg made no payment to either Frank Morrison or Humphreys. Witness knew of no payment made in regard to beer at Marat. A day or two before Christmas he got a message through the telephone from Jenkins, from Ward, requesting him to ask Dodson's brewery to send a cask of beer to the care of Hargood, at Ward, and stating that the money would he sent later. Witness gave the order to Frank Dodson, and a few days after he received a letter from Jenkins, enclosing postal notes for the beer. He told Dodson he had the money, and that he could get it by calling for it. Dodson had not called. The beer had no connection with the election. A. McCallum, recalled, said he gave no money to Jenkins, nor did he leave any money anywhere for him for beer to go to Mirza.

Ethelbert. Henry Best, motor car proprietor, recalled by Mr Sinclair, said the entries in his ledger had not been erased. He put a record as to the use of the cars -down, and a clerk came along in his absence and inserted £5, knowing that was the usual price for the cars. Witness afterwards wrote over the entry "no charge," as the cars were given gratu itously. The alteration was not made recently. ONE WITNESS FOR DEFENCE, JeUn.Jluiity Suihoiiand (chairman of Mr McGallum's meeting at Grovetown) corroborated Mr MeCallum's evidence abouting the treating at fi rovctown. There was no connection between the receipt of £1 12/G payment for the use of the Grovetown Hall and the payment ioi drinks. Mr Skerrett addressed the Court on behalf of the r-espondent. lie submitted that ft was patent that the petition was founded on unreliable gossip. Dealing with the allegation of treating, he sub- j mitted that the offence of treating ba<l; not been proved. There was no excessive treating at Grpvetown. Mr Sutherland paid, and Mr McCallum was present, but lie WS3 not identified with the "shout,"' and it was not used as the occasion of! a demonstration in Mr McGallum's fay ; our or to influence opinion in his favour The treating was a mere incident of elec tion, it was all done in perfect openness, and it in no way affected the first ballot, as Mr McCallum was defeated at that ballot, and a second ballot had to tako place. The petitiou ought to have been confined to the second ballot. As to the Okaramjo case, what be said in regard to Grovetown applied to Okaramio also. NO EVIDENCE OF CONTRACT. In regard to vehicles, Mr Skerrett said there was no evidence on qa'th that a I contract or payment had been made, and on that ground he submitted that the i Court could not hold the charge proved. | They had Mr McCalium's positive denial, of payment or contract to pay, and they had Mr Parker's evidence to the same effect. It was a curious circumstance that the account to Macey camn in after the petition had been lodgpd. tyn Hogan encored debits of vehicles hired in the ordinary way of business, so that he could submit the statement tp his direc j tors for approval, and it was not meant j to send a bill out. A new clerk sent it out.

As to the Morrison ckarge, Mt Skcr rett said they had no evidence On oath that Morrison was paid for his services as a canvasser, what Morrison eaid outside the Court was not evidence against Mr McCallum. Mr. Skerrett submitted tht there waa nqthing else the respondent had to answer. There was no proof whatever against Mr McCallum in regard to the Humphreys transaction, or in regard to the grain store liquor, .and it had not been proved that Mr M» Calluna's expenses were over £200. PETITION COUNSEL'S ADDRESS.

Mr Sinclair, addressing the Court, quoted authorities tq show that if drink was given to one man by a candidate, or liia agent, with the object of influencing votes, the ekctipn must; be declared void, and he submitted that the Grovetown "shout" was a "shout" made by McCallum to influence votes; it was a political "shout" on the eve of the election. As to vehicles, Mr Sinclair submitted that Mr McCallum, as a lawyer, must have knovyn that neither Parker nor Goodman had any right to give th 2 vehicles of the Mackenzie Company a? n gift, Goodman being only p. mortgagee, and Parker a mere shareholder. As to Parker's cars, it was proved that Parker made £4 out of the use of MeCallunrs car. which was equivalent to MeCallum paying £4 for the >.jse of or.c of Parker's cars. Regarding the Morrison charges, Mr Sincl.vr snid Morrison had consulted Widen whether he would accept an offer of .el per (lay, and he submitted that was tlie truth of tho trnn»a 't : on. Morrison also admitted ii to Ileilv anl others. It was absurd to suppose t>'at a '.vnrkinir man would work foui - or five days fpr nothing. The Court adjourned at i> p.m. till to morrow, but {Sir Joshua William* sad it wa» dqutyful if tb,ey would be able to give a, decision then.