ELECTION EXPENSES

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 247, 2 July 1926, Page 8

ELECTION EXPENSES

MEMBER FOR MARSDENS ACCOUNT RETURNING OFFICER REFUSES TO TAKE ACTION MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION. Auckland, July 1. Under the Legislature Act, 1908, a candidate (or Parliamentary honours is required within seventy days to forward a return of his electoral expenses to the returning officer for the district. William Jones, who was the successful candidate for Marsden at the last general election, failed to comply with the provisions of the Act, in that he rendered an incomplete i eturn. lie was called upon to file a return in compliance with the Act, and subsequently put in an amended return, which,' however, did not satisfy the returning officer. On March 8 Jones filed a third return, giving details of his expenses. These the returning officer considered complied with the Act. The three returns were searched by Samuel Mclnnes and Angus John McKay, and they called upon the returning officer (Frank Bird) to take proceedings against Jones for failing within the prescribed time to put in a true and correct account < f his expenses. The returning officer refused io take action, and mandamus proceedings were instituted.

The action was heard by Mr. Justice Stringer in the Supreme Court this morning. Mr. J. H. Luxford, instructed by Air. Trimmer, appeard for Samuel Mclnnes and Angus John McKay, farmers, of Whangarei, and Mr. Paterson appeared for Frank Bird. The statement of claim set out that on January 11, 1926, William Jones filed an account of payments made by him or on his behalf in the conduct or management of the election, but that such accounts did not faithfully comply with the provisions of section 173 of the Legislature Act, 1908. As a result of a request from defendant for further particulars. William Jones filed an amended account on February 17, but this did not comply with Hie Act. At the instigation of plaintiff, Samuel Mclnnes, Jones filed a further account on March 8; nor did this comply with the Act. No further action was taken by plaintiffs at this stage, as defendant requested them to wait, pending a replv from the chief electoral officer, Wellington, to whom, defendant had written for instructions. On Mav 3 Samuel Mclnnes sent a written ’ demand to defendant calling upon him to take proceedings. On June 14 the plaintiffs’ solicitors sent a final demand to defendant to take proceedings. On Tune 5 defendant replied refusing to take proceedings. It was claimed that William Jones transmitted an account that was false, in that he omitted to include or concealed items amounting to over £9O, expenses incurred through hire of halls, advertising and printing during his campaign. The motion for a writ of mandamus, moved by Mr. Luxford, was that Frank Bird, returning officer, should be ordered to take proceedings against William Jones on the grounds: (1) Hint William Jones was a candidate for the Marsden electorate at the generaj election held on November 4, 192'; (2) that he did not within 70 days after the day on which the result of the election was given transmit a true account, in accordance with the provisions of section 173 of the Legislature Act, 1908, of all payments made bv or on his behalf; (3) that he has not vet transmitted a true account; (4) that he has transmitted an account that is false on a material point; (■’>) that plaintiffs have made a demand that defendant take proceedings and that defendant has refused and still refuses to take action. Mr. Luxford traversed at length the legal aspects of the action and pointed out that it was not taken in bad faith, nor was there any suggestion of corruption. That, however, did not lessen the fact that there had been negligence on the part of defendant. Outlining the case for the defence, Mr. Paterson stated that defendant as returning officer was an officer of the Crown acting as such and under the control and direction of the chief electoral officer appointed under the Legislature Act, 1908, and also under the control and authority of the Minister in charge of the Electoral Department. On January 11, 1926, said counsel, William Jones filed an account of payments made by him, but this account was amended on two occasions, as it was alleged that the returns were not true and were false in certain particulars. On May 13 the plaintiff Mclnnes accepted an explanation given bv Jones. If Jones had not complied with the provisions of the Act, then such non-compliance was of a technical and trivial nature, and was not due to any bad faith on his part, and defendant' had exercised proper discretion in the matter. Counsel also urged that plaintiffs had no specific and legal right to cal! on defendant to take proceedings. After quoting nt considerable length on the legal aspect, Mr. Paterson said that before a writ was issued the Court should lie satisfied that the charges had been proved. They were grave charges and might constitute malpractice. If the payments said to have been made by Mr. Jones were totalled up and added to the account, he submitted, it would reach over £l2OO. That would amount to corrupt practice and he would be liable to be unseated. It had been suggested that he had made a false return, that in itself constituting an indictable offence. Whilst there had been a breach of the section of the Act, there was no ulterior motive. Tn taking action the plaintiffs were merely contending that as electors they had a right tn call for an investigation. ITis Honour reserved his decisioix