THE WAIRAU ELECTION PETITION.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1393, 20 March 1912, Page 6

THE WAIRAU ELECTION PETITION.

4 FURTHER EVIDENCE, , THE SUPPLY OF VEHICLES. A SOLICITOR'S DOTY AND PRIVILEGE. (By Telcjrrapli—Press Association.) Blenheim, March 19. Tlio hearing of tlio petition forwarded to tho Chief Justico by William Carr, John O'Sullivan, nnd John Lankow against tho return' of Richard M'Callum us reprosentativo of tho Wairau district was continued thi3 morning beforo Sir Joshua Williams and Mr. Justico Chapman. Mr. Sinclair was for tho petitioners, and Mr. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. Mills, for respondent. Win. Humphreys, secretary of the M'Kenzia Carrying. Company, continued his evidence. He produced a rough book used in tho stables. He said he received all his instructions from Mr. Hogan, the manager, in entering Mr. Macey's name in tho foreman's stable book. Hu produced a receipt showing that one King was paid for driving a vehicle on tho 11th. King was paid 255. for driving and supplying norses mi tho 7th, and similarly in regard to the 11th. On the 17th Xing drove in connection with tho licensing poll. Witness answered a number of questions put by Mr. Justico Chapman in regard to entries in the foreman's book. Jas. Frank Nosworthy, chairman of directors of tho M'Kenzij! Carrying Company, was asked by Mr. Sinclair: Would you lie surprised to learn that vehicles of tho company Mr. Skerrett objected to tho form of the question. Witness went on to reply that ho had attended meetings of tho directors during tho last six months.

Has any proposition been mado to the directors to supply vehicles freo to anyone?— No.

Speaking for yourself, if such a proposition had been made, • how would it liavo been entertained?—l couldn't say.

Witness continued: Ho was not in tlio habit of giviug vehicles free to anyone. Jitr. Hogan was manager for 8} months. Ho left of his own private accord. In tho courso of time tho directors saw in tho papers that it was contended that tho vehicles had been supplied on the 7th and Utli gratuitously, lie believed an account was sent out to Mr. Slaccy. Ho. had no personal knowledge. Mnccy did not see him iu regard to that account, neither did M'Callum nor Frank liull. Nobody saw him about it" .Mr. Rotors was solicitor to t.ho company. As far as 110 knew, he instructed Mr. Rogers three or i'our weeks ago, after tho rendering of tho account, to inspect the books of the company for tho month of December, and advise him. Tho secretary wished to bo clear as to tho account. It was reported to him that Moeey disputed tho account, and ho instructed Sir. Rogers. He had also seen in a petition in a paper a suggestion that vehicles had been given gratuitously.' Witness objected to a cjuestion os to his sido in politics, and Sir J. Williams put tho question in the following form: Did you take any part in the election? Witness replied iu (ho negative. He was on uo election committee. Cross-examined, witness said as director ho had not yet considered the question whether they would proceed for tho account. His instructions to tho solicitor related to tho manner in vhick.tho coinpanv was all'ected by tho petition. Thos. Piko said he was a director of tho JTKonzie Carrying Company. Ho had attended meetings of directors fairly regularly. Ho hnil heard of no suggestion to give anyone the use of vehicles gratuitously. Ho, had never instructed Mr. Hogan, tho manager, to do so.. Ho read in the election petition in tho "Express" that a contract was made by the company with Mr. M'Calluin for election purposes. That was tha first ho heard of any such alleged contract. The first ho heard of tho account against Mr. Jlacey of .£3O was last week, lie attended a meeting at which the question was discussed. No resolution was passed regarding the account. Ho simply instructed the secretary to produce tho books in Court. • Jiicliael Hogan, livery stable manager, said he camo from Wellington to manago the Jl'Kciuiio Carrying Company's busiitoss somo nino or ten months ago. Ho severed his conncction with tho company u Ix3ut two weeks ago. The custom in the stables was for tho foreman to keep tho book work coming in booked up. Ho had inndc an affidavit on the matter.

Counsel for petitioners asked Mr. Skcrrett to product- the aliidavit. Ho objected unless ordered by tho Court. Sir Joshua Williams ruled that ho was not called upon to do so.

Witness continued that 110 was a member of Mr. M'Callum's committee, and took a keen interest in securing his return. lie spoko to tho employees of tho company about, the election. AH were of opinion that Mr. M'Callum was the right jnan. He had u conversation with. Mr. M'Callum, who said ho itould havo to bo particular about amounts to bo spent, and coidd not treat people. Mr. M'Callum called at the stables and explained that no' payment could be made for vehicles or any work to assist him in th« election. Witness understood that Mr. M'Callum asked for tho pre-uso of seven to twelve vehicles for the 7th. He understood four or five vehicles would bo required. A few days alter he found eight to twelve were required. He could not find an entry in the book. Mr. M'Callum did not- 1 tell him what vehicles he required. Witness took it that Mr. M'Callum put confidence in him to look after the supply of vehicles. He promised the vehicles for nothing, as he know if 110 paid both Mr. M'Calhmi and tho company would be liable to a fine. It suited witness not to enter arrangements in advance. Seven vehicles were supplied on Jlecember 7 with drivers. Ho never mentioned to the directors that 110 had supplied vehicles, gratuitously. Tho time had not arrived for writing off the amount from the books. Ho did that in March at the trial balance. All the vehicles were entered against Mr. Macey for tho reason that Mr. Macey was the previous name in the book, nnd the matter to write ol: account was sent out to Mr. Macey and returned as not owing. One vehicle doing election work was diverted to take a wedding party to church. Mr. Macey objected to diverting the vehicle. In carrying tho firm have to give and take. He received no money from Mr. M'Callum, ilr. Macey. or Mr. Bull. No particular'number of traps were arranged for. It was left to witness to give what could be spared. Witness seat t'he traps out on election day himself. No fresh arrangement was made for tho second election. He had received no promise of money from Mr. M'C'alluin, Mr. Macey, or Mr. Bull (Mr. M'Callnm's secretary). He had offered vehicles for Mr. Wilton's candidature.

William John Roach, stable foreman, faid ha made all arrangements for sending out the vehicles under tho direction of Mr. Hogan.

Mr. Sinclair said 110 had subpoenaed the drivers of tho vehicles 011 election day, but if Mr. Ske.rrctt admitted they were used ho would not call them.

Mr. Skerrott admitted they v;oro used for a cortain purpose on certain conditions. Jas. Francis Mielr.'.lanney, livery stable keeper, said ho lent tho vehicles to the M'Kfnzie Carrying Company, and sent his account to the company. It had not yet been paid. The company told liim to send the account to Mr. Macy. He did not send the account to Mr. Macey. Genree Peroral Rogers, barrister and solicitor, said he was consulted by Mr. Nosworthy. chairman of directors of tho company,' in regard to the company's b.^eks. Mr. Sinclair asked: On what point were you aske-J to ndvise? Skcrrett objected.

S'r Joshua Williams: You don't sugvon will go into matters between *n!Hfor ar.d client? '

Mr. Sinclair maintained that there was n'' such privilege in a,*i election court. FTe relied on Section 202 of tho Legislate '■» Act.

Sir ■Insliua Williams said thn opinion of thr Court was Hint portion Kfl2 did not npplv to the position. iUr. Sogers wiw consulted by his olicnt. 'Hie clientshould pivo infoTmat'ion. Mr. Ticjers pave advice. r,-id r.o duty was more sacred than ji "ilicitor's rot to divulge what a client told liini or v;hnt information a Mdioitor »ave. The T.estWaturo and Courts al\Vnv= rwofnifcd this. It was not only tho privilejro that a solicitor should not divulijo 'What took place between. himself

and client, but a solonin obligation. Ho doubted very much if tho question wero iidiuissiblo even if I'lio cvidenco proposed to be adduced were relevant. Kecxiou 20did not release a solicitor from liis duty not to divulgo information giyen by a olicnt and advico jjiven by a solicitor. Witness, continuing, said ho knew nothing of any payment in relation to this account. Ho heard nothing about tlio payment of X6O. Edward Stouo Parker, after being sworn, said: Your Honours, boforo I start tho evidence, I want to claim tlio protection of tho Court. This person (indicating Mr. Sinclair) now asking 1110 questions threatened'me if I don't givo certain evideuco ho will got 1110 three j-earsi ou tho road. These .iro his own words."

Sir J. Williams asked if witness took this seriously. Witness replied that tlio solicitor had threatened him, mid endeavoured to got some of his employees to swear falsely. On Holiday night ho had endeavoured to get them to givo certain evidence. Six J. Williams said: I don't think you need bo afraid you will get three years on the road.

Witness said this was tho sort of thing tint had been going on in connection with the caso.

Sir J. Williams Teplied tho Court would seo that witness would not be unduly harassed.

!Witness then went on with his evidence. Hp said he was a motor-car proprietor. Ho had live cars. On December 7 all wero employed running people about. Two were engaged by Dalgety and Co., and Mr. Coleman, of Vernon, lent three others to Mr. M'Callum. Mr. Coleman asked him for the loan of tho cars, and mentioned that the cars could not bo paid for. Witness said in that caso lio would not mind what side used them, but, as Mr. M'Callum askcd_ first, lie would lend them to him. Witness had tlio uso of Mr. M'Calluin's own car on one occasion. Ho made 30s. on that occasion out of tho car. Mr. Healy asked him what cars lie could get for tho second ballot for Mr. Duncan. Ho replied only the one ho already had. Ho might liavo said that Mr. Bull had engaged cars for the second ballot. To Mr. Skerrett: There-was an understanding in reference to the first arrangements. Wituess considered, lie fulfilled his promise to Mr. M'Callum at the first ballot, and was free to lend tho ears to Mr. Duncan's side for the second ballot. After he mentioned that he intended to lend the cars to Mr. Duncan's side Mr. Bull convinced Mm that his promise to Mr. M'Calluin's side extended to both ballots. He sent a man named Powell across to Mr. Healy, to say lie could not carrv out his promiso to lend the cars to Mr." Duncan's sido, but learned after that the message had not been delivered. No promise of payment was made or implied from Mr. M'Callum. In answer to Mr. Justice - Chapman, witness said the drivers were salaried, and his petrol was consumed on both Mr. Skerrett closely examined witness with regard to his opening remarks as to witness's interview with Mr. Sinclair. Witness =aid Jlr. Sinclair asked him to consult tho solicitor of the company as to the proprietv of seeing the company s books. Witness and Mr. Nosworthy gave his rcplv in the negative. Mr. Sinclair then spoke as to witness's evidence. He told Mm that if he did not say if he hired cars to Mr. M'Callnm 110 would get him three ■ years, and also threatened other pains and penalties. Ho tnought Mr Sinclair wished to intimidate him. 111 answer to .Mr. Sinclair, witness denied that if Mr. Sinclair said.he had evidence that witness earned .£1 for Mr. M'Cnllnm's car, and refused to admit it, he would be committed for perjury. Arthur Wiifeii, a candidate at the first ballot, said Mr. Parker said to him beforo the first ballot that he must riot iclv on him for cars, as lie had arranged for Mr. M'Callnm to liavo all (he cars, but Mr. M'Callum had agreed since.to f.ivo witness tlio loan of his car, and suited witness all Tight, as lie had earned in 0110 day -CI bv it. Witness gave his experiences as to shouting in tho country. At the only threo places at which he did not sliout 'there wero no hotels. 1 In doing so ho did not think he was improperly influencing voters, and it was invariably the caso when lie shouted for one or two friends, a crowd gathered aud joined

"riie caso was at this stag© adjourned till 10 o'clock next morning.

Owing to an oversight on tho part of the Press's Association, the following was emitted from tho report published yesterday:— , , ■ ... ... , Archibald M'Callum, brother ofrespondent, in reply to Mr. Skcrrett, said that some davs previous to the first ballot ho met F. Dodson, aerated water manufacturer and breiver. Ho lold Dodson lie could use his office and telephone in the grain store in conncctiou with the 'licensing poll. He saw 110 drink or drinking on" the morning of the first ballot. In the afternoon lie saw some liquor and. empty bottles in the office. Ho .was no party to supplying or paying for the liquor. He gave no person drink on that nay. and lind none there himself. ■ He denied that he gave anybody money to buy drink for electors directly or indirectly at Mirza or elsewhere. (Clause 10 of tho petition slated that between the first and second ballots A. M'CaHum gave certain electors at Mirza monev to buy liouor ill order to treat and bribe such electors. to* Tota for the said Richard M'Callum.) In answer to Mr. Sinclair, witness denied that ho was severely cross-examined at a ■No-License meeting about lienor being in the grain store. The No-License 'League did not express disapproval of liquor'havimr been at his office. He did not know wlio brought the liquor to the store, Dodson was at one meeting of Richard M'Cal--1 urn's committee. Dodson was at the grain store practically all day. .