THE WAIRAU SEAT.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 14308, 20 March 1912, Page 11

THE WAIRAU SEAT.

PETITION AGAINST MR R McCALLUM'S RETURN.

(raw* ASSOCIATION TKLEGRAM.) BLENHEIM, March :$. The hcaimg of the petition, against Hie elect idii of Richard McCallum. ;.s member for Wairau, was resumed this morning William Humphreys, wcrotary of the McKenzie Carrying Company continuing his evidence regarding - tiio movements of the company's vehicle on the flection days, said that the sub-t.tution of tbo name of Mr M.ney. .1-. <hairman <>f Mr McCallum's poinM.ll rommittco f<r that of Mr fMithciland, rhairman of the Grovctot*.n Committee, was ma<le an instruction to Mr flojan who was then manager for the compai'v. .lame- Fr.-nk Nos-.vorthy, chairman of of the Mcl\enzi«* Carry in;' ip Company, .said that no proposition was made to 'he company during tho last six month* t<> supply vehicles free to anybody Mr Hogan, the manager. '< ft the company's service of his own accord on M.irdi 2nd. Neither Mr .Maci-y m>r Mr McCallum saw the witness in reference to an .K'l-ount for £30 It's •''! for the lure oi vehicles. Witness in.-.tructed the company's solicitor to examine the books foi December, as the secretary df-irtd to be-perfectly clear regarding the jcfount which Mr Macey disputed, ' *<- ho knew tho company would be sub- ) poenatd. He- never instructed Mr f llog.in or any other employee to give vehicle-, giatuitously to Mr MeCallum. To Mr Skerrett witness sai<l that no action had been taken with regard to Miing Mr Macey for unpaid accounts. Michael Hogan, late manager for tlie McKenzie Carrying Company, sa:d that he nas a member of Mr McCallum's i fiction committee. Most of the em--1 plo\e«, ot the company favoured Mr McCallum's return. Witness never c.invas-«d amongst them. Ho spoke to Mr, McCallum several times regarding \ chicle* for use at the election. On. one occasion Mr McCallum said that li«» would hare to be very particular as regards the amounts paid out. About <**> ten day before the. first ballot Mr McCallum called at the office and ex--4 s plained to »witness that ,there could.be no payment whatever for any work done ny the company to assist him in the election. Ho said he would liko to make a payment, but could not. Witness had no recollection of what answer he gave Mr McCallum, but ho •sio'ild swear that when Mr McCallum eaid that there could be no payment for the vehicles, he did not wink at ' "/ witness. Ho understood Mr McCallum ' asked for the free use of from seven 1 to twelve vehicles for part of December 7th. To Mr Justice Chapman: Tho conversation had no reference to outside vehicles nor to the hiring of vehicles for .i any other day. Ho could not find any «ntry in any of .the company's books .showing that any vehicles were booked for December 7tn in advance. To Mr Sinclair: He promised Mr McCallnni the- use of tho vehicles for nothing. He was convorsant •< with the Act regarding elections. It suited him not to enter the > vehicles in advance. • There wero seven -vehicles out on the first ballot day. Ho did not mention • the matter to any of the directors. Ho was going to lot Mr McCallum -havo tho ■vehicles fieo if he had stayed in the company's service, and would havo mentioned it when the trial balance carau on in March. Ho told tho stable foreman to enter all the vehicles tip to Mr Macey. He knew an account was entered up against Macey for £30 16s : lift in the ledger. * The usual-time for 1 .sending out accounts was the end of tho j month. Macey protested against ono ot his vehicles being used for a ,wedHna. Witness told Humphreys that he had done rightly in diverting the vehicle from-'the election wedding Hedidtfot ctifisider'Alr McCalluhi had asked him to defraud the company ij letting him have the cabs free. It was necessary to give and take in carrying on the company's business. ' r He had told a prominent supporter of 'another candidate that he could have the vehicles free if he w;anted-them. He received no money whatever from Mr McCallum, Macey." or Bull (Mr McCallum's secretnry). Since the election Mr McCallum never spoke to him about money. - To Mr Skerrett: Mr McCallum gave . him to understand"clearly that no payment would be made in the future for tho um> of the.vehicles. There was no secret agioement with anybody regarding payment for the vehicles. Ho thought Mr Parker, the largest shareholder of the company, knew of his intention to give traps free. He let Mr ;McCallum have free vehicles for the second ballot also. Neither Mr McCal- , Jtim nor anyone else had.the right to .iiir the vehicles if witness had thought fit to refuse them. ' ' ' ;• ' ■- - Hogaiu in reply to Mr Skerrett, said •that none of the-directors, had so far complained to him regarding tho sup--1 ply mg of vehicles free on election day. He did not know that the account for . hire had been rendered till afterwards, •after Mncey had--returned'the account. .Mr McCalliiru saw witness arid complained that tho account was a mistake j He reminded'witness that he had given him the use of the vehicles free. Witness admitted that the-account was a and promised to attend-to it. ( . Re-examined: Ho did not inform the , directors of Mr McCallum's complaint. On the books being referred to a solici- ' 'tor. the latter advised that they should v bo lett unaltered. ' Witnc.s* never suggested that the books should bo altered. James Francis "Michalanoy. livery .stable Keeper, said'he lent vehicles to the .McKenzie Carrying Company, and sent his account to the company. Ho had not yet been paid. The company told him to send the account to Macey, but -ho did not do so. George Percivnl Rogers, barrister and solicitor, fcaid he was consulted by Mr ,>'osworthy, chairman of directors of the company, in, regard to the company's books. , ". 3lr Sinclair;: On what point wore ,' -you asked to advise? Mr Skerrett objected. *- ) Mr Justice Williams: .You don't sug,gcst .than yon should go into matters between a solicitor and his client? _. Mr Sinclair maintained thnt there •was no such privilege in an Election : Court. He relied on section 202 of the Legislature Act. His Honour said the opinion of tho Court was that section 202 did not apply to tho position. Mr Rogers was -coiiMiHcd by his client, and tho client "'* could grvc the information. No duty was more sacred than, that a solicitor * ' should not divulge what a client told him or what information the solicitor ' ga\c. The Legislature and the Courts always recognised that it was not only _a_ privilege that a solicitor should not "divulge what took place between him- " self and a client,-but it was a solemn ' obligation, He doubted very much if the question was admissible, even if tho evidence proposed to be adduced was relevant. Section 202 did not release a solicitor from his duty not to divulge information given by a client, |»nd advice given by the solicitor. f • Witness, continuing, said he knew nothing of any payment in relation to * this account. Edward Stone Parker, after being ' «worn, said: Your honours, before I start giving evidence, I want to claim the protection of the Court. This '{ )* I person (indicating Mr Sinclair), who is now asking mc questions, threatened • that if I did not give certain evidence, bo would get mo three years on the roads. These were his own words. Mr Justice Williams asked if witness ■jj v - took this seriously. ' ~ Wltnoss replied'that the solicitor had i - threatened him and endeavoured to get

some, of his cmployoos'to swear falsely; lie had endeavoured to'get them to give certain evidence. . Mr Justice Williams: I don t think you need be afraid of getting three years on the roads. Witness said this was tlie sort of thing that hail been going on in connection with the case. Mr Justice Williams replied that the Court would see that witness was not unduly harassed. Witness then went on with his evi<i?ncc. He was a motor-car proprietor. lie had five cars and on December 7th all were employed running people about. Two were engaged by Dalgcty and' Co., and Mr Coleman, of Vornoii. lent three others to Mr McCallum. Mr Coleman asked him for the loan of cars and mentioned that the cars could not be paid for. and it did imt matter what side u.sed them. Witness said in that case he would not mind what sido used them, but as Mr McCallum' had asked first, he would lend them to him. Mr Mealy asktvl him what cars lie could Let for the second ballot for Mr Duncan (the other candidate), and he replied only one. Ho might havo said that Hull had engnged the cars tor tho second ballot. To Mr Skerrett: Witness considered that he hud fulfilled his promise to Mr McCallum at the first ballot and was free to lend cars to Mr Duncan's side for the second ballot. After ho mentioned that ho intended to lend cars to Mr Duncan's side, Hull convinced him that his promise to Mr McCallum's sido extended to Ixith ballots. There was no. promise of pavtnont made or implied from Mr .McCallum. Mr >Skerrett closely examined witness with regard to his opening remarks as to witness's interview with Mr Sinclair. Witness said Mr Sinclair asked him to consult the solicitor of the company as to the propriety of seeing the company's hooks. Witness and Mr Nosworthy gave a reply in the negative. Mr Sinclair then spoke as to witness's evidence and told him that if he did not say if he hired the cars to Mr McCallum, he would get him three years, and also threatened other pains and penalties. Ho thought Mr Sinclair wished to intimidate him. In answer to Mr Sinclair, witness denied that Mr Sinclair said if he had evidence that witness earned £4 on Mr McCallum's car, and refused to admit it, he would be committed for perjury. Arthur Wiffen, a candidate at tho first ballot, gave his experiences as to shouting in the country. The only throo places at which he did not shout were where there were no hotels. In shouting he did not think he was improperly influencing voters, and it was invariably the case that when he shouted for one or two friends, a crowd gathered and joined in. The further hearing was adjourned till 10 o'clock next morning.