EXTRA EDITION.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 71, 23 March 1912, Page 8

EXTRA EDITION.

THJJ WAIRAU CASE. — «—« — ' PETITION DISMISSED. fBY TELEGRAPH.] ! (From Our Special Reporter.) BLENHEIM, This Day. The. election petition in the Wairau case was delivered at noon to-day. I Taking the 'paragraphs seriatum, the> judgment of the Court commences by pointing out that the commission of corrupt or illegal practices involves serious penal consequences and disqualification of holding a public or a judicial office. Iv order to establish th& guilt, the same degree of proof^ was required as in an ordinary criminal case." The evidence in such cases must exclude any reasonable possibility of innocence. The. Court had held that no allegation /esflscting Mr. Wright had shown that he was in any way acting as M'Callurn's agent. The Court also held that the charge against Mr. Wright as regards making a bet of £30 was irrelevant to the enquiry, and no evidence was otfered in- support of the- allegation. Mr. M'Lauchlan was also stated to be the agent of Mr. M'Callum, and that he had made bets on the result of the /election or that Mr. Humphreys was en-gag-ed && a canvasser. The charges the Court had to consider tvere — (1) treating ; (2) contracting for payment on account of conveyances and ■expenditure in connection with the election of amounts in excess of that allowed by the Act; and (3) as regards the engagement uf FranV Morrison. As ' to the treating allegations, there was absolutely no evidence to secure the allegation* that Mr. M'C'alluin had | given certain electors money to buy liquor to treat the electors at Mirza with, and nothing was thown to reasonably infer that ' Humphreys, in supplying drink at Seddon, was the agent of Mr. M'Callum. Nothing was ad- i duced to show that he was anything "but a voluntary worker on the Liberal side. 'In respect to the Grove-road charge of supplying liquor, the evidence justified, the conclusion that it wafi not brought there or used for the purpose of the election, but for the licensing poll. In regard to the charges of treating at Grovetown and Okaramio^ the only instances provod against the respondent 4 of supplying liquor during the whole campaign, in the course of which he delivered forty-two addre&aet., there was no suggestion that on the two occasions were part of a general scheme to influence the votes at Grovetown. Tho circumstance* were not sufficient to show that the drink was supplied with the intention, on Mr. Sutherland's part or on the part of Mi 1 . M'Callum, to influence the election result or the votes of the election. The alleged making of contracts for the hire of vehicles gave rise to some difficulty. « • Referring to the nse v of Mr. Parker's cars, the Court held that Mr. M'Callum had. not been seriously attacked. As to veracity, when in the box he appeared to give his. evidence candidly*, and the Court caw no reason to doubt that he gay© it truthfully. If his version of the arrangement was accepted, and they did accept ii, as true, they found that Mr. Parker's account of the transaction was* substantially the same. There' was no evidence, therefore, to support the charg-a, -and there was no evidence^ of payment or contract for payment having been made. v Their Honours saw no reason to doubt the statements of the respondent and Mr. Parker. A3 to jhe hiring of Mr. Best's cars, there was also no reason 'to doubt the respondent's evidence. Coming to the charge relating to the hiring ot the M'Kenzie Company's vehicles, it was alleged that Mr. Hogan had no authority, actual or presumed, to enter into an arrangement to give the vehicles gatuitously. The Court was satisfied that as long as he acted honestly, the respondent was not bound to look beyond Mr. Ho gan for any arrangement he might make. Their Honors were satisfied, upon the respondent's and 'Air. Hogan's evidence, that it was not tne intention to make a contract, or make a liability for payment of vehicles. Ac to the hiring of two sets of vehicles and drivers by Mr. Hogan, Mr. Hogan thought fit to arrange that himself, and the Court did not find that he was acting at> agent for the respondent. Nothing had been pioved regarding the allegation in connection with the excess of election expenses. In dismissing the charge their Honours said that the petitioner might have shown some foundation for the grave and specific charges set out in the particulars.. It was highly improper that such charges should be made without some solid ground to dnppon theni Regarding the Frank Morrison charges, petitioners' case was supported by unsworn statements and circumstances giving list to suspicion. The Court was of opinion that the petitioners had failed and that Mr. M'Callum was duly ejeoted. Costs were allowed againet the petitioners up to the incidental petition and the trial thereof, to- be taxed by the Registrar.