ORGANISER SUES DEMOCRATS

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 301, 16 September 1936, Page 10

ORGANISER SUES DEMOCRATS

Salary Allegedly Due PARTY OFFICERS AS DEFENDANTS Work in Auckland District Bv Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, September 15. A sequel to the General Election was heard in the Magistrate’s Court to-day when ’ several well-known personalities of what was the Democrat Party were sued by Harry Charles Baulf, political organiser, claiming to recover from them a balance of salary and expenses allegedly owing for his work as Auckland organiser for the party. Counsel’s opening address and plain tiff’s evidence occupied tile court all day, and the case was ‘then adjourned till Thursday.

Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., was on the Bench. Mr. J. F. W. Dickson appeared for plaintiff, Mr. A. K. North for William Goodfellow, who was in court, Mr. H. J. Butler for A. E. Davy, who was not present, Mr. A. St. Clair Brown for J. B. Donald, who was present, Mr. B. Elliot for T. C. A. Hislop, who was not present but whose evidence, taken at Wellington, was commented on by Mr. Dickson.

Plaintiff claimed that defendants were the officers of an incorporated body known asthe New Zealand Democrat Political Organisation, of which the defendant, J. B. Donald, was chairman and Spencer Clark, also a defendant, was secretary. The defendants Goodfellow, Davy and Hislop were officers, or were on the executive. Baulf claimed that in October, 1934, he was employed by Davy at a salary of £7 a week, with expenses. He claimed recovery off £195, balance alleged to be owing. Mr. Dickson said that Baulf was engaged in 1934 by Davy, who said that Goodfellow would be finding £25,000— £5OOO himself, two others £5OOO each, and he was arranging the balance. Goodfellow subsequently confirmed this, saying he would finance the Auckland executive for, at least six months. Position of Mr. Hislop. ' , Proceeding, Mr. Dickson said that Goodfellow continued payments for some months until he fell out with Davy and resigned. , . “The position of Mr. Hislop is an extraordinary one,” said Mr. Dickson in commenting on his evidence taken in Wellington. “Mr. Hislop said he would devote his life and talents to the service of his country and the cause of the Democrat Party. He in fact received £3250, of which he alleges he was to receive £lOOO for himself and three payments of £lOO per month.” This, apparently, was done, said Mr. Dickson, to placate his partners for the time spent for the Democrat Party. HisTbp admitted only having received two monthly payments of £lOO. Mr. Elliot : He admits nothing. Mr. Dickson contended that as a member of the party Hislop was partly liable for this debt. , - Mr. Elliot said that the statements made by Mr. Dickson were incorrect. As far as Goodfellow was concerned, continued Mr. Dickson, he and Davy on September 12, 1934, entered into an agreement to form the party. Davy was to receive £1250 a year for three years and the committee was to be Davy, Goodfellow and two nominees of Goodfellow. "This was an extraordinary condition of affairs,” he added. “The objects of the Democrat Party were to promote and maintain loyalty to the King, the British Empire and the Dominion of New Zealand and the constitution, but we are now looking to this organisation to pay its debts. As for Mr. J. B. Donald, he had promised from time to time that he would personally see that the debt was paid. The Democrat Party is not a registered organisation, therefore all members of the executive are personally liable.” Mr. Dickson then quoted a number of legal authorities before he called plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Evidence. Plaintiff, Harry Charles ■ Baulf, said he was a political organiser and was connected with the United Party in 1928, the National Coalition Party- in, 1931 and the Democrat Party at the last election. "When Mr, Davy offered me the position, I had 'reason to make inquiries about the financial position of the party,” said Baulf. “Mr. Davy at first said my salary would -be £lO a week and expenses, but in October of 1934 he said the finance 'was not all forthcoming and that my salary would be £6 a week and expenses.” Mr. Dickson: Did you at any time discuss the matter with Mr. Goodfellow? Witness: Yes. In September of 1934 lie told me that what Mr. Davy said was quite right. He said he was going in of going behind Mr. Davy to form the new party. He also said he would be responsible for £5OOO himself. He arranged that I was to get 6d. a mile for use of my car. I commenced duties on October S, 1934. Mr. Goodfellow and I looked at offices and decided on one in Gifford’s Buildings iu Vulcan Lane. Mr. Goodfellow guaranteed the rent and paid £2O into the bank. Witness said that on October 29 a local executive was formed, J Hislop, S. Rickards and himself, as secretary, being authorised to sign cheques. It was also decided that there should be an inner organisation committee, Davy stating that there must be an inner executive to run the whole party, as finance and other things could not be mentioned at big executive meetings. Baulf said that J. B. Donald became chairman of the Auckland executive committee in August, 1935. Denny became secretary and treasurer iu June, 1935 Up to the middle of .January, 1935. witness got his cheques fairly regularly. Goodfellow resigned from the organisation in August, 1935- A statement of liabilities (produced) on June 18, 1935, showed £ll3/10/- wages owing to Baulf. This statement was drawn up by Denny. It was passed for payment by the Dominion executive, but witness was paid a part only. The balance of £5O/5/8 was left owing, said Baulf. On December 14, 1935, Denny drew up another balance-sheet (produced), which showed £5O/5/8 balance of wages owing to Baulf. This amount had never been paid- Banff said lie incurred expenses totalling £B2 8/10 in the interests of the organisation which had not been paid to him After the election J. B. Donald took all the office furnishings and books. The lock

was changed and witness could not get into the office. Among the books were the account books.. Witness had not seen them since. Mr. Dickson then produced a letter from Denny. I Mr. Elliot (for Hislop): I object to lids letter going in. It does not concern the case at aIL Mr. Wilson: The letter has no reference to any claim for wages being made by Baulf. Continuing bls evidence, Baulf said he knew of an agreement between Davy /and Goodfellow. He produced a copy of the agreement, witness’s wages to be £6 a week plus expenses and his daughter to receive £l. The daughter was dismissed by Donald and witness’s wage was raised to £7 by Dayy. Donald’s private secretary, Miss Foster, took over the work of witness’s daughter. Witness said he was not present at the meetings of the Dominion executive, but had attended most of the Auckland executive meetings. Goodfellow resigned in August, 1935. Witness had discussed the outstanding account with Donald, who had said the amount had not been paid because there was no money then available. At two meetings of the organisation when finances were being discussed, Donald said the accounts had to be paid, and he would see that this was done. Witness’s solicitor had written to Donald and Davy demanding payment of the account which witness claimed was owing to him. Witness’s solicitor had also written to the secretary of the Democrat Party, Wellington, demanding payment of the £lB4/7/8 which witness was claiming. Witness personally had not received any reply. Davy was the chief executive officer of the party and was also on the finance committee. He collected 'funds for the party, the funds being controlled by the Dominion executive. Witness remembered receiving a-letter from Davy in June, 1935, in which he asked for more details of an account covering expenses of the Auckland office, an item in the account being £ll3 due to witness. Witness had been unable to get the account books covering the Auckland office. He had asked Denny about them, but Denny said he had not got them. Mr. Hislop’s Evidence. Witness knew Hislop’s evidence had been taken in Wellington. Hislop was head of the party /and witness had heard him say from the platform, “I now dedicate myself and my all to the service of this party and my country.” Witness had read Hislop’s evidence, in which he admitted receiving £lOOO and two sums of £lOO a month. Witness did not know what became of the balance of the £2050. Witness had not seen any balance-sheet by Hislop to show wliait had been done with the money. Cross-examined by Mr. North, witness said the idea of £lO a week and reasonable expenses first came from Davy. Mr. North: I submit that Mr. Good* fellow, who contributed a substantial amount, did not tell you he would provide £sooo?—“He told me he would provide or secure £5000.” Provide or secure? —“Provide.”

I submit it was Mr. Davy who mentioned the £5OOO and not Mr. Goodfellow?—“They both did.”

Mr. Goodfellow says that irrespective of what you received later, your original salary was only £4 a week. — “No, it was £6.” Counsel produced cheque book butts of two cheques showing payments to witness for the months of October and November of £l6. . Witness said that'in addition- to those he received payment from Davj. Mr. North: So far as Mr. Goodfellow knew, your salary was £4 a week? —“Yes, • perhaps so.” In reply to Mr. North, witness said there were three stages in the party. In the first period from October, 1934, to Janffa'ry, 1935, Goodfellow was spending a considerable amount of money to start the organisation. A rift occurred between Goodfellow and Davy over questions of policy. Goodfellow interested ; himself in the new party as the result of endeavours to secure reciprocal free trade. By January the policy was changing and Davy was trying to get people like Donald. He was spreading his net a little wider. "Yon mean he was using a smaller asked the magistrate. (Laughter) Expenses Questioned. Witness denied that Davy had ever told him his expenses were too high, but Dpnald had questioned them once. He was told to stay at the best hotels and represent the party in a suitable manner. “I suppose you obeyed that in the letter and the spirit?” asked Mr. North. Witness said he had not applied to Goodfellow before the court action. “What did you do after the election,” asked Mr. North. “I had to clean up the mess,” replied witness. “You did not have to write any congratulations to successful candidates, so your duties should not have been very onerous,” said counsel. “I had to meet the creditors,” replied witness. Cross-examined by Mr. Brown, witness said Davy alone superintended his work. He was quite positive that Donald had not said he would do his best for witness, but that he said be would see the money owing was paid. • Mr. Brown: Is there any reason why lie should say that?—"Because of our relationship. Mrs. Donald is my cousin.” You knew at that time there was a considerable sum owing to Mr. Donald himself?—"A fair amount.” If Mr. Donald says he never intended to guarantee you personally, do you say he is wrong?—"l do not know what he intended.” Witness was cross-examined at length on a cheque for £2l he had received from Donald in September. He said he asked Davy for some money and Davy told him to get three weeks’ wages from Donald and Davy would forward a cheque for the amount. Witness denied ever having received such a cheque from Davy. When Mr. Brown finished his cross-' examination, the hearing was adjourned until Thursday.