ELECTORAL EXPENSES

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 2, 2 July 1926, Page 3

ELECTORAL EXPENSES

MEMBER'S RETURNS CHALLENGED

PRESSURE ON RETUBNIKG

OFFICER.

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Ist July.

Under the Legislature Act, 1908, a candidate for Parliamentary honours is required within seventy days to forivard a return of his electoral expenses to tho returning officer for the district. William Jones, who was a candidate for Marsden at the last General Election,* failed to comply with the provisions of tho Act, in that he rendered an incomplete-return. He 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 Bth March 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 M'lnnes and Angus John M'Kay, and they called upon the returning officer (Fraud Bird) to take proceedings against Jones for failing within tho prescribed time to put in a true and correct account of his expenses. The returning officer refused to 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 Mr. Trimmer, appeared for Samuel M'lnnes and Angus John M'Kay, farmers, of Whangarei, and Mr. Paterson appeared for Frank Bird.

The statement of claim set out that on 11th January, 1920, William Jones filed an account of payment 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 the defendant for further particulars, William Jones filed an amended account on 17th February, but this did not comply with the Act. At the instigation of the plaintiff Samuel M'lnnes, Jones filed a further account on Bth March; nor did this comply with the Act. No further action was taken by the plaintiffs at this stage, as the defendant requested them to wait, pending a reply from the chief electoral officer, Wellington, to whom the defendant had written, for instructions. On 3rd May Samuel M'lnnes sent a written demand to the defendant calling upon him to take proceedings. On 14th June the plaintiffs' solicitors sent a final demand to the defendant to take proceedings. On sth June tho 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 £90, 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) That William Jones was a candidate for the Marsden electorate at the General Election held on 4th November, 1925; (2) that he did not within seventy days after the day on which the' result of tho election was given transmit a truo account, in accordance with the provisions of section 173 of tho Legislature Act, 1908, of all payments made by him or on his behalf: (3) that he has not yet transmitted' a true account; (i) that he has transmitted an account that is false on a material point; (5 that the plaintiffs have made a demand that the defendant take proceedings and that the 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 coiruption. That, however, did not lessen the fact that there had been negligence on the part of the defendant.

Outlining the case for the defence, Mr. Paterson stated that the defendant as returning officer was an officer of the Crown acting aa 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 11th January, 1926, said counsel, William Jones filed an account of payments made by him, but this account was twice amended, as it was alleged that the returns were not true and were false in certain particulars. On 13th May the plaintiff M'lnnes accepted an explanation given by 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 the defendant had exercised proper discretion in the matter. Counsel also urged that the plaintiffs had no specific and legal right to call on the- defendant to take proceedings. After quoting at considerable length on the logal aspect, Mr. Paterson said that before a writ was issued the Court should be 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, ho submitted, it would reach over £1200. That would amount to corrupt practice and he would bo liable to bo unseated. It had been suggested that he had made a falso 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. In taking action the plaintiffs were ltferely contending that as electors they had a right to call for an investigation. His Honour reserved his decision.