THE WAITOTARA ELECTION PETITION.

Evening Star, Issue 7386, 5 December 1887, Page 1

THE WAITOTARA ELECTION PETITION.

WANGANUI, Deokmbee 3. Mr Bell, while the witness Hogg was uudgr| examination, stated that he had intended asking witness as to treating on days other that polling day, but had overlooked it. Mr Travers objected to this evidence being allowed, as the New Zealand Act limited the offence of treating to the day of polling, and in this respect differed from the English which provided against the offence before, during, or after election. It was pointed out by the Court that there was such an offence -as treating known to common law as distinguished from the law of Parliament. ~ •„... Mr Travers’ main contention was that the giving of meat or drink was not an offence.in the Colony unless it took place on polling day. Mr Bell stated that of course they had to prove that meat and drink were supplied to influence the voting in the Wigan case (Page’s), The very questions he intended to ask were asked, and the charge there was that of general treating. He submitted this as the latest case, and urged that treating,, as known to the common law, was applicable to New Zealand. The Chief Justice asked how, if treating was bribery at common law, Mr Travers could object. Mr Travers replied that the definitions wen the same, but under the New Zealand Act treating was only an offence on polling day. ;> The Chief Justice stated that the rule vn that stronger evidence had to be given of treatng than of ordinary briberyMr Travers also objected to the general charge of treating being proved by individual cases, but if Mr Bell desired to sh6w that treating was bribery he could do so. Mr Bell contended from the Wigan case that he could prove general treating from an individual case. The discussion then dropped, the Court reserving the point. Owing to the non-appearance of a number of witnesses, the Court went back to the bribery charges. William Ross, under cross-examination, said: Hazelden, a supporter of Bryce’s, had since the election three or four times asked witness if he was not well paid for working for respondent. On the occasion of the ascend interview he told Hazelden he was not promised any reward for what he had done, but thought he would stick respondent up for a billet. At the third interview Hazelden said that he had been speaking to a prominent supporter of Mr BrycK and advised witness to go to this supporter and confess everything, and he would he well paid and could then return to his parents in Australia. Andrew Graham said he was at Kerioiwhsn respondent addressed the electors there, r Aftp* the meeting, Piercy -brought in whisky, aid said Here, boys, help yourselves.” Beegtondent was not present when the tvhisky was brought in. '' ''" • B. P. Lethbridge said he saw HoggatdTm. kina on polling day. Hogg shouted fcfr him. Cross-examined: Witness and Hogg were old friends, and had a drink together whenever they met. Witness was a supporter of Mr Bryce.' Hogg knew that. . a F, J. Fox said he was at Turakina on polling day. He saw Hogg dritddrig . withtevend

flrst°meeting there. He hoard Hogg ask respondent for money. Respondent P ull ®? * sovereign case and handed Hogg more than one coin. He was certain more than one com passed. Hogg remained at the hotel. There was some shouting, but he could not say who shouted. The drinks were passed into the Cross-examined; Gave these particulars to Mr Bryce and had told others, but could not say exactly what he had said to others, William Simpson said he also remembered the incident. Hogg came out of the hotel ana said to respondent; “ Have yon got any money, boss!” Respondent pulled out a case and gave kina on polling day, also on the Saturday heft polling-day. He had drink with him on Saturday/ Hogg paid for . th ® t d ? n s^ the election saw Hogg “ an | neonle Respondent shouted for witness ana another on one occasion during the election Remembered M‘Lean saying hehadrecoiveda pound from respondent. He told mm henaa better be careful, or he would be getting a blue paner some day. M’Lean said he did not care as he was well paid for what he said. Witness replied that he would get reasonable expenses. Remembered seeing Hogg at Turnkina on the Saturday before polling day. He had a roll of notes on that occasion, and pulled them out to pay for drinks. He was sure there were more than two notes. Orors-examined: He drove forty miles to see M'Lean. From something Mr Bryce had said to him he asked M'Lean if he had got any money for voting for respondent, M Lean said he asked respondent for some money to pay the expenses incurred in t-avelling to vote, and that respondent gave him (M’Lean) a sovereign and a drink. M'Lean was now in witness s employ. He would not swear that it was on the 10th or 17th that he saw Hogg pull out a roll of notes at the hotel at Turakina. John Piercy said he accompanied respondent to Eerioi. They took a dozen bottles of whisky to Eerioi. He presumed respondent paid for the whisky. After respondent’s meeting at Eerioi he sent some bottles of whisky and water into the room. The whisky was taken up for the use of the party on the journey. He sent six bottles into the room after the meeting. There was only a bottle and a-half of whisky in the lot. The bottles were filled up with water. He was at Eennedy’s on the polling-day. Kennedy’s was the nearest polling place for Waitotara to Wanganui. A number of people came from Wanganui to vote. He had some drink. Sometimes witness shouted and sometimes others for him. He had heard that some whisky had been sent to Eerioi after respondent and witness returned to town, but knew nothing about the matter. Cross - examined: The weather was very severe on the journey to Eerioi. Snow was falling all the time, and stimulants were necessary under the circumstances. _ . Alexander Montgomery said he attended respondent’s meeting at Upokongaro. Had drinks after the meeting with others at respondent’s invitation. He did not know who paid for the drinks. There were over a dozen in the room, and sixty or seventy at the meeting. Mr Bell said the charge that Watson, a station hand at Eerioi, had been paid expenses incurred in attending to vote, would be withdrawn unreservedly. There had been a mistake, which he much regretted. The Court adjourned till Monday.