POLITICAL CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 233, 1 October 1936, Page 22

POLITICAL CASE.

ORGANISER'S CLAIM. DEMOCRATS' TRANSACTIONS. COURT RESERVES DECISION. After hearing addresses by counsel yesterday afternoon, Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., reserved his decision in respect of the claim of Harry Baulf, political organiser, for £195 11/2, which he alleged was due to him for work done on behalf of tlie Democrat party. Plaintiff claimed that lie was engaged by A. E. Davy in October, 1934, as agent for the organisation at a salary of £7 a week, together with expenses. He claimed that appointment was made with the authority and consent of W. Goodfellow, J. B. Donald, Spencer Clark, and T. C. A. Hislop, and that Goodfellow, Donald, Clark, Davy, and Hislop were liable for the amount of plaintiff's claim. Mr. J. F. W. Dickson appeared for plaintiff, Baulf, Mr. A. Iv. North appeared for W. Goodfellow, Mr. H. J. Butler for A. E. Davy (not present), Mr. A. St. C. Brown for J. B. Donald and Mr. B. Elliot for T. C. A. Hislop. '

"Endeavours to Escape." Before Mr. Dickson continued his address yesterday afternoon, Mr Elliot submitted to the magistrate various legal points, including the provisions of the Electoral Act, in which were set out the officers that might be employed by any political party. Mr. Elliot submitted that Baulf was, under this Act, illegally employed.

Resuming "his address, Mr. Dickson said that the sheet anchor of the defence, in their endeavours to escape their liability, was that plaintiff looked to the funds of the party, but Mr. Dickson submitted that if plaintiff looked to the funds, he looked to those who controlled or had the funds. If an organisation had no entity, in law those who were foolish enough to be connected with it were responsible for its liabilities, provided those liabilities were incurred by officers of the organisation acting within the scope and in furtherance of the objects of the organisation. "If the organisation so mishandles its business that it has no funds, that is the fault of its members," stated Mr. Dickson, "but at least one witness has said that this organisation has funds in certain hands. Whether or not the funds are there, the plaintiff has a claim for money owing to him against those who had the handling of the funds."

Davy's Position. I Mr. Butler opened his address by [stating that Davy's position had always been substantially different from that "of the others. From first to last he was a paid servant, and he had no prospcet of the plums of office, such as was held cut to the others. He was purely an executive officer, although as such he hail, under the constitution of the party, a seat on the executive. His position was similar to that of Baulf.

"I take it that the next organisation he promotes will have a slightly differjent constitution," remarked Mr. Wyvern i Wilson. "The executive officer will not have a seat ex officio on the executive. He will remain an advisory officer.*' At the time when the contract with Baulf was alleged to have been made, said Mr. Butler, the executive was not in existence, and the executive could only be held responsible as accepting a contract already in existence when °he executive was formed. Under the teims of the constitution the executive h«d power to enter into contracts on behalf of the organisation only, and, therefore, it was the organisation that was responsible. It had not been established that Davy was a member of the organisation. His ex officio claim to a seat on executive was good only while he was in the employ of the organisation. If Baulf wanted to claim, he should have looked beyond the executive to the members of the organisation. Goodfell >\v was, up to his resignation, a member of the organisation, and Hislop, though he had denied it, had definitely held himself out as being so. The same applied to Donald, even ir neither of them'had complied with the formality of applying for membership oji the forms provided for that purpose. Davy's position was quite different, but if Davy were held to be responsible, as being' a member of the executive, then Goodfellow, up to the time of his resignation, and Donald, while he was a member of the executive, were equally responsible. The plaintiff had not, however, in counsel's opinion, shown that he was entitled to look lo any person for payment.

Claim on Funds. Plaintiff had discussed the finances of the new party with Goodfellow, said counsel, and had been satisfied with Goodfellow's statement that he would stand the initial expense. He knew of Davy's contract with Goodfellow, but apparently lie did not think of getting a similar contract for himself. In his evidence plaintiff had said that lie looked Tor payment to the party funds, and even after the election he addressed his claim to the Democrat political organisation. He had never held any persons responsible. When the contract was entered into between Baulf and Davy the latter was purely an agent for Goodfellow. Neither Goodfellow nor Davy was present at the meeting, however, when Baulf's claim for £113 was passed. jDaVy asked for particulars of his claim, but it has not been proved that he received them. In announcing that he would reserve his decision, Mr. Wyycrn Wilson thanked counsel for the lucid manner in which they had presented their arguments in this involved case, and for their industry in bringing up such a large number of references on points of law.