THE WAIRAU SEAL

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 70, 22 March 1912, Page 3

THE WAIRAU SEAL

PETITIONERS CASE. CONCLUSION OF THE EVIDENCE. JUDGMENT RESERVED. (By Our Special Reporter.) Tho hearing of the Wairau election petition was concluded shortly after 9 o'clock laet evening at Blenheim. The Court leserved its decision, and announced that judgment will probably be delivered at 5 o'clock to-iiight. Joseph William Humphreys, - exschool teacher and now an accountant at Blenheim, was in tho box when tho laat telegraph mes&age was deepatchci to The Post yesterday. Witness said he took an active interest Sn politics on behalf of tho Liberal Party — not on behalf of Mr. M'Callum. He denied that he had continually bothered and pestered one Patrick Mceban with ;i view to getting his vote for M'Callum. Mr. Sinclair : On 7th December what quantity of Jiquor did you have in your poeeession ? Witness : Twelve bottles of beer and a bottle- of whisky. It was stored in a private hall in which. \ am a shartoholder and secretary. What became of tho whieky? — It was stolen by the Reform Party. And what became of the beer? — What usually becomes of beer! I presume it was consumed by Wai» rau elcctoiß? — Some of it was^ and tome was not. Witness added that he and five others decided to got th* beer. It would have taken 1200 bottles of beer, and r.ot twelve, to influence tho Sectors there. Mr. Sinclair : How do you suggest the Beforni Party took tho beer away'/ — Through' the window. They came like a thief in the night? — Yes. but it was a thief in the day this time. I know, because the person who took it offered to pay for the whisky. Was not one of your own boys concerned in it? — Yes, but he was not re* sponsible for the disappearance of tho bottle. Was it not a joke?— Yes, I think tho beer all through was a joke. "AN INFERNAL LIE." Witness denied that he had anything to do with tho sending of beer to Mirza. He had no beer in his possession on 14th December. Between the first and second ballots he worked hard in tlie intereete of tho Liberal Party. He had discussed politics but hud nut canvassed anyone for votes. Mr. Sinclair : Were you in lhe hotel at Seddon between the lirst and feecond ballots? Witness : Probably I was. Did you say in the hotel "come and havo a drink. I have plenty of M'Callum's money left?"— Certainly not. That would be untrue? — Not only untrue, it is an infernal lie. In reply to other questions he denied that he had eaid to Patrick Meehan that he was doing better out of tho election by not acting as a deputy-re-turning officer. Patrick Meehan had a, lively imagination. NOT A COM2IITTEEMAN. Answering questions by Mr. Skerrett witness explained that he had never occupied a position on Mr. M'Callum's committee. The beer to which he referred' was got by himself and some friends. Tho r-eason he had no beer in a similar way on the day, of the second ballot was because he got a curtain lecture from his wife. The reason he retired from his position as a teacher was that he had rew;hed the age of 55. He had never received any payment from Mr. M'Callum or any promise of payment. A WITNESS WHO KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT. Alexander Birnie, contractor, said he was working on the railway works on 7th December. He wae invited by several of the men to go to a woolshed and havo some beer. He refused. Witness understood that tho beer had come from a_ schoolmaster at Seddon who was retiring from his position. He had not seen the beer and knew nothing about it if it wae supplied as suggested. He took no interest in the matter. This closed th© case 6o far as the Mirza charge was concerned. RESPONDENT'S SECRETARY. Tasman Frank Bull, accountant, Blenheim, said he had acted as secretary for Mr. M'Callum during the election. For this work he had received neither payment nor promise of payment. Heproduced his bank-book and a detailed account to show what payments he had disbursed on behalf of Mr. M'Call'im. Counsel failed to elicit anythin< r further. To Mr. Skerrett : Ho had made, no payment to either Frank Morrison or J. W» Humphreys. As to the sc-iiding of beer to Mirza, he got a- telephone message from Mr. Jenkins, of Ward, asking him to got Dodson's brewery to forivard a cask of beer to J. Hargood, uv some Euch name, at Ward. It was stated that the money would be sent later. Ho gave the order to Dodton, who said the be&r would be despatched in time tor the train. A few days later he received a letter from Mr". Jenkins, enclosing postal notes for 303 (letk-r and postal notes produced). He rang up Dodson, and told him he could get the money by calling at the office. He had not done ko. (The letter bore tho postal marks, "Ward, January sth," and the postal notes, "Ward, "January 2nd.") Tho Wairau roll bore a name J. Harwocd, carrier^ Seddon. Witness understood he was in the carrying business at Ward. Mr. Sinclair re-examined the witness, who said he believed Jenkins worked as a |abourer on the railway works at Mirza. He knew no reason why Mr. Dodson had not collected the money. Witness did not give Jenkins any money. Archibald M'Callum was recalled, and denied that he had given * Jenkins any money. CONCERNING COMMITTEES. Mr. Sinclair put in a copy of the Blenheim Express of 13th December, containing advertisements, -signed by F. Bull, on, behalf of Mr. M'Calluni*s committee, and C. Ferguson, for Mr. Duncan's committee, telling aU electors they were entitled to vote next day, whether they had done so at the first ballot or not. Mr. Justice Chapman : What is the purpose of this? Mr. Sinclair : To show that Mr. M'Callom's committee was not disbanded. MOTOR-CAR PROPRIETOR RECALLED. E. if. Best returned with his books, called for the previous day, and ho was questioned by Mr. Sinclair p_s to why two items for 7th and 16th December were altered. Witness replied llvtt the original entries were- si misiiikt> by his ek-rk. The alterations ivero not made recently. [ Tnis closed lhe case, for the petitioners. CASE FOR RESPONDENT. Mr. Skerrott announced that he proposed to call one wrtnesa only. John Sutherland, farmer, 'Grovetown, etafced M§ version fif the incident at

Crrovetown Hotel, which coincided with .Mr. ll'G'allum's. Witness asked half a lioz^u fiicctU to yo along with liim. Wh< ii he got to the hotel there were numbers '»t people in the hole!, ami ntoie came aftu winds, lie could nofc pick out oiie or U\o, and paid it would mean all having v drink. Tho £ict that he shouted wa:> never intended to iniiuei'co voteis, and he was perfectly certain it hud i;ot done po. After ciobs-cxaniination by Jlr. Sin» clair, Mr. Skcrrett closed hit cape. A FRESH APPLICATION. ill. Sinclair rose and said In had an application to make — to go into tho i Dryden charge of bribery, where it. was alleged that a piomise to secure coiupentation for an ex-Government employee had besn intuit* by Mr. M'Callum. ijr. Sk_errett objected. His friend had deliberately closed his case, he had done likewise, and now he desired to leopen. Mr. Sinclair hnd bfMi allowed very considerable latitude, and had conducted a most inquisitorial 'enquiry into various persons' books and private papers.. • Further, the Court had admitted' the evidence and referred the question of its l ejection. The Court- declined to grant the application. :.m. SKEitKK'rrs address. 'Mr. Skerrett declareti that t)ie case was founded on the shifty and unreliable goisip of iii email to'.vn. and each item of the gossip was enshrined in the petiiion in a, manner which, fortunately, wae not of common frequency. These observations, ho claimed, were justified on Mr. 31'Callam's behalf. Mr. Sinclair had been very zealous in raking up every possible charge that could be ' brought againob Mr. M'Callum. Every insinuation that could be made against hk client had been made. The casecould be divided into three headc :—(1): — (1) The treating at Grovetown and at Okaramio : (2) the hiring of vehicles from the M'Kenzie Carrying Company, and Messrs. Parker and Best; and "(3) 'the payment, or alleged payment, to Frank Morrison, and the alleged payment, or prointso of payment, to him of £1, per day for canvassing between tlje first and second ballots. Counsel quoted Niogal authorities to feliow that where treating was alleged it had to bo ehown before an election could he voided, that it had to be general or corrupt. WHAT IS CORRUPT TREATING? Mr. Skerrett went on to define corrupt treating. He said he had looked at all the sections, and jn not on© had the definition of treating or .corrupt practice a. legal effect. Treating was not an offence at common law. An offence could not be created by implication. ' Tho point had not much importance to his client, because he submitted corrupt treating had not been proved. The English Statute prohibited treating before, during, or after the election. The New Zealand Statute limited it to polling. He claimed that to have an effect the evidence in the present case would have to show general treating or corrupt treating. He proceeded to review the facts placed before the Court, dealing first with tho Grovelown Hotel incident. Mr. M'Callum was in no way identified wiih tho ehout He was not the host, and the- occasion was not made one for converting tho political opinions of any one. It was a. mere , incident of an election meeting. He submitted that the people would have gone to the hotel in any case. Mr. Wiffen had candidly told the Court what happened in hie case. The incident was not a tecret one ; it was all done quite openly, and it .could not .be present in Mr. M Callum's mind or Mr. Suthei land's mind that any elector was being influenced. Indeed, Mi*. M'Callum was an unsuccessful candidate at_ tho first ballot, having a regard- for the' votes polled: As to the Okaramio charge, one or two people had a drink with Mr. Aichibald M'Callum. That wan all. HIRING THE VEHICLES. So far as the charges in respect to the M'Kenzie Carrying Company were concerned, the statute prohifiited "payment or contract for payment." There was no evidence on oath to prove either. Indeed, Mr. Hogau. had expressly denied any contract or that there had been any payment. Mr. M'Callum had told the sam© thing on oath, and Mr. Sinclair expressly dclared that he regarded him as a witness of truth. Th© 'fact that th© directors knew nothing erf t.ho arrangement was quite explained by Mr. M'Catlum's interview with Messrs. Packer and Goodman, the largest shareholders. In regard to the sending out of tho account it was a singular thing that this was done after the publication of the election petition, and that fact went to show that Mr. Hogan's statement that the sending of the account wai au error of a clerk was quite reasonable. CONCERNING CANVASSING. He submitted that there was no evidenco that Frank, Morrison had been paid any money. His statements about £1 per da.y being paid him were evidence against himself, bub net against M'Cailum. _His conduct was. difficult of explanation; ho appealed to be running with the hare and hunting with tho hounds. Ho might have been influenced in his attitude by a telegram from Hiv Joseph Ward. Counsel also claimed there was nothing in the incident at Archibald M'Callum *s mill. The;© was nothing whatever to connect either R. M'Callum or A. M'Calkim with the incident. On the remaining charges no evidence was given or they were not proved. Bsfore he resumed his seat counsel said he wished to make the statement that tho vehicle hired by Dalgoty, and Company on. polling day w.aa not used m connection with the election. 2lr. Sinclair : I have pleasure in saying that is so. * PETITIONER'S COUNSEL. In opening his address Mr. Sinclair eaid ha proposed to cite the same authorities a* his friend Mr. Skerrctt. He quoted authorities to show that if treating was carried out even witli a view to keeping up the zeal of the party it was corrupt. This was the dictum laid down in the Rochester Borough case. Further, it was laid dowu that the treating in each caee wae a question of fact, lhe time at which the act was done was also a relevant consideration.' In the Grovetown ca6e the last treat occurred two hours before the polling day. Ho also quoted the Tamworth case of 1869 where it was laid down that if drink was supplied to a single voter with a view to influencing his vote the election muet be declared void. The treating at Grovetown took place on the <*vo of the election, and the evidence of tho petitioners was that of sturdy men— honeat farmers. Tho man he was going to rely on was a client of the respondent, Mr. Sadd. This -witness declared that Mr. M'Callum had eaid to him "Come along, Mr. Sutherland id going to shout ; we will lower his pockets." -Mr. Skerrett had said this was only the observance of a eocial custom. Had it been so groups of three or five or seven, would have kouo to the hotel and, more impoihmt ilill, the drinks would have been pa-id for at the time. -Mre. Inness, the wife of the licensee of the hotel, had stated that tho drinks were not paid for come weeks aflerwardo. lie declared that when Mi. Sutherland paid £1 12s 6d for hire of hall at Grovetown the remembrance of the fehuut v.-as brought back to his mind, 'lhe treating at Grovetown of 50 pei-pl* probably influenced 160 voteis taking wi.e& iuid female voters into account. HIS VIEW OF THli GKOVJfcI-BOAD ' CASE. An Ui the' treating at Grove road h*

submitted that it had been established by Mr. Healy in his evidence that. Mr. Uodson was a fctrong supporter of the respondent. Dodson had to admit that nin« bottles of beer wero in the office of Archibald M'Callum. Thru tbpy had the evidence that a man v;ss eeen coming to the office with something in a tack, and h'J ventured to say that tho sack was ijpt full of prayer books. He reminded the court of Mr. Hyndman's evidence, and said that on these grounds alone the election should be voided. There wa3 also the evidence as to loud voices and wrangling, and when , that took place lie Migges-ted that the people' concerned. were not drinking cold water. "SUSPICIOUS PIAPPENINOS." Coming to the branch of the caee concerning the M'Kenzio Carrying Company, ho said Mr. M'Callum wan a law • yei. ho knew that it was a company, and he knew that the company must have directors. Also, he must know that a wages man, getting 12s Gd per day, had not the power to give away £30 o,f his employer's vehicles free. In p. bmall town liko Blenheim it was abj surd to cutest that Mr, M'Callum did I not 1 know who the directors of tho company were 1 . It was also a significant fact that the- manager of the company did not enter tho vehicles in the rough stable book, which waa the usual prac tice of the company, and tho petitioners suggested that tha reason he did not do si> was because ho daro not do so. Hogan mud have met the managing director every day, and could have runt; up Charles Parker, another director, any moment, and, although there wa& a meeting ou 3rd February, he did not briug tho matter beforo the directon. because he dared cot do so. Not only thia, but jVIr. Hogan went into the highways and bywaya, and ho incurml debta for the company to pay. Mr. Michalanney was besought to supply vehicles, and his account against tho M'Kenzio Company amounted to £4. The account remained unpaid to Una day, and tho significant fact was that both Mr. Hogan and Mr. Humphreys, the secretary of tho company, referred Mr. Michalanney to Mr. Macey for the payment of the account. It "was" impossible for the respondent to get over that position. Tho account for tho vehicle-s was duly entered in the booka of tho company under Mr. Ilogan'e supervision. The repudiation by Mr. Macey was a mere formality. That was the time for Mr. Hogan to bring tho matter before his directors — tho 25th January. And as to an oral contract, they had the evidence that when ono of -the vehicles -was taken away for a wedding party Mr. Macey stood up for hia rights, and protested agaiimt such action. *AVas that the action of a mar* who had received a gift'/ Although Parker was a large shareholder he had not a scrap of authority over the directore. Ho trusted the Court would say that Mr. M'Callum could only deal with the directors of the company. Tho fact that Mr. Edward Parker held 3000 shares did not give him authority to despoil the rights of those who lield the other 1000 chares in tho company, in law, he submitted that it was proved that tho vehicles were to be supplied at the current market \alt. PARKER'S CARS. \n. respect to Mr., Parker's car he claimed that it had been conclusively proved that Mr. Parker had made PA out of using Mr. M'Callum\s car. Counsel said that because he looked upon Mr. Wiffen as a witness of truth. This was equivalent to Mr. M'Callum paying £1 for the use of one of Mr. Parker's cars. This, ho claimed, brought the contract within the four corners of the Act. To show the improbability of Parker lending his cars, he quoted the evidence of .Mr. Healy to tho effect that he paid £5 per day for one of Parker's care*. Some things were so absurd on the face that even a child' would not' believe them. In addition, there was tho admitted fact, •that Parker had broken his promise to Healy to supply -cars at tho second ballot. The Bench saw -the 'ferret-like cunning of Mr. Parker in the box.' Mr. Bull was as a child compared to him. MORRISON'S PART. ' Counsel next dealt with the Morrison charges. Ho said that Morrison had consulted Mr. Wiffen as to -whether he should accept £1 per day. He admitted to Mr. Holdaway that he had done well out of the election. This presumed the receipt of money and nothing else. It was absurd to suggest that a working man would travel nearly 100 miles per day and work hard tor a candidate gratuitously. Mr. Justice Chapman: Has any one given any evidence of the oxistence'of tha contract? Mr. Sinclair: No, only Morrison's own statements. , THE BEER AT MIRZA. Then came Mirza. He submitted the allegations in the petition were proved by Dodson and Company's book. Why should the entry in the book be put against M'Callum, if, as Mr. Bull suggested, the order came from one Jenkins? Further, why was not the entry carried forward in Dod&on's books? Tho explanation given was a very tignilicant one. Why was Jenkins not called? Jenkins was heard of that day for the iire-t tune. Why had Dcdson 'and Company not taken tho 365? Sir Joshua. Williaans: Tho beer was ■supplied after the election. Mr. Sinclair declined that it was not ordinary business to leave 36s lying about. It was very suggestive. Mr. Skerrett: The postal notes are dated-2nd January— long before the petition was ever heard of. Dealing with tho allegations concerning Seddon. Mr. Sinclair pointed out that Ml. Humphries had proposed a. vote of thanks to and, confidence in Mr. M'Callum and that he had sent in the report of -the- meeting to the Express. Ths fact alone that liquor was supplied at Seddon to electors on polling day under the guiding hand and diiection of Mr. Humphries was alone enough to void the election. THE DEFEATED CANDIDATE. Mr. Wiffen wa,s a bluff, genial English, gentleman, and the fact that he had aono what he eaid' he had in the way of "shouting" did not excuse Mr. M'Callum. Two wrongs did not make a right. The incident in connection with tho hiring of Mr. Beet's cars was one on which a fresh petition could be based. He claimed that it was abundantly clear to anyone that the erasures in Mr. Best's books were made quite recently — probably within the last fortyeight hours. The Court reserved its decision, and announced that it would sit again at 6 p.m. to-day.