ELECTION PETITION

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 104, 4 May 1915, Page 4

ELECTION PETITION

oi CONCLUSION OF BAY OF ISLANDS CASE COUNSEL'S ADDRESS. (IT MLBGRAFH— FRBSB ASSOCIATION.) KAIKOHE, 3rd May. The hearing of the Bay of Islands election petition was -concluded to-<iay. Mr. Justice Chapman and Mr. Justice Hosking presided. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. P. Levi and Mr. W. P. Endean, appeared for petitioners, and Mr. J. R,. Reed, K.C., with him Mr. R. M'Veagh, for the respondent, Vernon Herbert Reed, M.P. RESPONDENTS ADDRESS. On the close of the evidence, Mr. Reed, K.C., addressed their Honours. [ Counsel remarked on the novelty of the ■ points in the case. ' Petitioners had six weeks, he said, in which to search for charges. They laid nine charges, of which six had been abandoned. Of the three remaining charges one referred to bribery through an amendment, and the other two alleged technical cases of bribery. The enquiry revealed a combination between the Opposition, and. -the defeated Government candidate. There could not have been any attempt at corrupt practice in 'the electorate by the successful candidate. There could be no corrupt practice without a corrupt intention. Mr. Justice Hosking : If there were no corrupt intention, can the election not beset aside? Mr. Reed, : If the act of an agent were corrupt, it could be. ' The evidence in Jacentho's case was very slight (counsel continued), and suggested that Jacentho, from the personal motive , that the licensing legislation should not be changed, practically interviewed Samuels on his own initiative. It was inconceivable that the candidate would have been so foolish as to permit the approach by anyone of Wilkinson as his agent. The parties were at arm's length". Matters considered private and confidential had been revaaled after Wilkinson had refused the offers. How could it be suggested that he would, with the payment of his expenses, be persuaded to retire? There •was no evidence of agency on the part of Jacentho. It was left entirely, to the Prime Minister to say who. was to be the representative of the party. Ifc was certainly not lfnown that Wilkinson would be a candidate, and Mr. Massey was endeavouring to satisfy him. The Premier asked which he would, prefer* — an Upper House appointment or to conteßt the election. Wilkinson regarded that as an offer, but he left the matter in the | hands of his supporters. There was nothing wrong in the endeavour of a party to prevent vote splitting. Underlying the. action of both Mr. Massey and respondent was the desire to help the party. All that was done was done before Wilkinson was announced as a. candidate. At that time an offer of money would jsot have affected the position had a section of the English lAcfc been in force in New 'Zealand- How could it be termed i a corrupt act if a person fully qualified were appointed to the Upper House whose agent was Johnson? He might have been the agent of Mr. Massey or of respondent, bnfc was he not in the case solely the agent of Mr. Massey? He would not have moved one inch for respondent, to whom be was personally opposed. He was only prepared to act with tno> consent of Mr. Massey. Mr. Justice Hosking : Then Reed was onily the equivalent of &' telegraph mes-' senger? - Mr. Reedj.'K.C. : Yes, or a telegraph pole. (Laughter.) Mr. Justice Chapman j Johnson's expenses were paid by Reed. Mr. Reed replied that as Mr. Massey had asked respondent to get Johnson to see Wilkinson, and Johnson could not afford the trip, Reed took the view that he had no alternative. Mr. Justice HoskLng : Then Reed acted as Mr. Massey's agent, and could recover from him? Mr. Reed : That is the legal position. ARGUMENT FOR PETITIONERS. Sir John Findlay said that the Judges were asked to say whefcher.it was legal for the party in the ascendency for the time being to remove opposition from that party's candidate by giving an opponent a (seat in the Upper House involving the payment out of the public puree of at least £1400 and other emoluments. He argued that it was far from being a legitimate or proper thing where parties came before a democratic constituency that the Prime Minister, the sitting member, or anyone else should endeavour to remove from the contest by means of a, bribe of a seat in the Upper House, a candidate who threatened a supporter of the ascendant party at that election. The principle iprofoundly , affected future elections in, the country. The retirement of Wilkinson at least indirectly secured the return of Reed. It was impossible to escape the conclusion that if Wilkinson retired the return of. Reed was as humanly certain as it coultl possibly be. The appointment dttself was not th» bribe, as it was made by the Governor., The offence % would be complete when Wilkinson agreed to accept on the terms mentioned: The office need not be in the gift of the bribe at all. It wag the, offer to procure. Johnson believed that the offers were mad© by Reed but had Mr. Massey's approval. The man who could say whose proposals they were was Mr. Massey. and that letter partly told Johnson and the Court that Reed's proposals had not received the approbation of Cabinet. Counsel submitted that ■what transpired -was that Reed impressed upon Johnson that he (Reed) was in a- position to astsure Wilkinson that ha would receive an appointment to the Upper House. Reed could not procure the Beat, but he was a party to thepromise to endeavour to procure the seat for Wilkinson. Even if Reed did not add that he would work $o secure Wilkinson's return yet it was proved plainly that Johnson told Wilkinson that it was ! a part of the offer coming from Reed, ' and consequently to that extent on the i caces Reed was liahle. Counsel did not suggest that Reed was a party to any improper intention that Ins agent Jacentho should make any offer of ! money payment to Wilkinson for his ex•penses, but that made no difference. ] The Court had frequently pointed out j that hardship. Without a strict rule of i pgoncy the door might be opened to corrupt practices of % very serious character indeed. The Court adjourned its decision, which will in all probability be given at Auckland on Friday morning.