The Wellington Suburbs Seat.

Hastings Standard, Issue 244, 11 February 1897, Page 3

The Wellington Suburbs Seat.

CONCLUSION OF CASE

ELECTION DECLARED VOID

[By Telegraph

(iVr /Vi.« Axsot:iati"i>.)

Wellington, Feb. 10. The abandonment of the charge of improper registration against Mr Wilford also involved the abandonment of Mr Hislop's claim to the seat. Mr ftkyrerfrsaid he would not press the counter charges, but of course if the claim was made on the seat they would be revived. James Andrews, private secretary to the Premier, deposed to making a search for Gibb's letter to the Premier without finding the same. James Lingard, insurance manager, recounted taking Standen to Mr llis- . lop's office the rumors about the Atkinson Ministry. Told Hislop that Standen expected £2 a week from Mr Wilford ;if not he would sling the job." Thomas Willian Hislop gave similar evidence n- Standon. Witness touched on a certain conversation with Mr Wilford in which the latter denied paying Standen. Witness admitted having made an advance to Mulvanrv on security of policies and one Thomas, but denied any collusion with Patience re alleged spying. Knew nothing of Mr Wilford's letter to the Premier r. Mnlvaney until December 2nd- His supporters were instigators in the present petition. Had not himself contributed to the petition fund. For the defence George Gapes, painter in the Railway Department, deposed that Mulvaney visited him, tilling him he was after a Government billet, and had a letter from Mr Wilford to the Premier. He ottered wit- « ness two rooms in his house for the committee. Witness accused Mulvaney of treachery and subsequently declined the offer of the rooms. William Durrell deposed to Mulvaney saying to him before the election •' Yon may get Wilford in. but Hislop and I have got him tixed. Hislop has a letter which will unseat him." The hearing was adjourned till 10 a.m. next day. This day. Ellen Hall denied that she induced Mulvaney to work for Mr Wilford upon the prospect of a Government billet. Mulvaney told her he had lost Mr Wilford's letter. Edward Hall said he never recommended Mulvaney to go to Mr Wilford. Andrew Collins said Mulvaney applied to him to present him to the Premier. He told him to see Mr Wilford, and Mulvaney said the latter had refused a personal introduction to the Premier. Knew nothing of Mr Wilford giving a letter to the Premier. Mr Skerrett, addressing the Court, contended that to disqualify the candidate promise of employment must be given for the purpose of obtaining or influencing his vote. He quoted an English case in which the Court held that the affairs of life, including acts of charity, must go on as usual during an election. The Court must be satisfied in order to disqualify that the promise to secure employment was sufficient, and must be bound by the decisions quoted. The Chief Justice remarked the counsel's contention was not embodied in the statute. Mr Skerrett wenf on to quote other cases. The Bolton case laid down that there must be a direct attempt to influence the vote. He said there must be very strong evidence, to prove corrupt practice. In the ease of a promise to procure employment, as distinguished from direct bribe in this instance, there was no£ sufficient evidence to show that any attempt had been made to influence Mulvaney, and this man's testimony was prejudiced by bias. There was no evidence that be even worked for Mr Wilford, but he did work and kept liquor tor Mr Hislop's interests. He reviewed all the evidence bearing on Mulvaney's relations to Mr Wilford, and argued that all Mr Wilford did was merely out of good nature. and was influenced by Mulvaney's pitiful <-tory. He briefly went over the evidence of Betibery. and contended there was nothing to support the allegation. Surely a man had a right to pay his just debts, and in no election case had it ever been held this was bribery. The reason of the delay wa- that Mr Wilford knew nothing about them till the election came on. One w;tn»--had said he had never troubled to put in a claim before. As to Standen. who was alleged to be a paid canvasser, there was no evidence that he was paid or contracted to be paid. Mr Chapman, for the petitioners, said the main point was Mr Wilford's letter to the Premier i> Mulvaney which could bear but one construction. He contended that Mulvaney agreed to support Mr Wilford at the interview they had in the Supreme Court, and distinct evidence of corrupt bargains made then and there. The witnesses contradicting Mulvaney Were still politically e\cit« d. and his evidence l was corroborated on the main points by the respondent's witnesses. After getting the letter he was a (iovernment supporter. Mr Wilford's attitude in the box after the letter was read was very different to what it was before, and he had to aln.i: Muhaney mut have told him he wa - a • ipfloßSr or m>iu«. thing to tha' «{?<•.;. it was not mvi-sary for a r-'i/ular ktrg.tin to be proved to bring the prm/.-. antler the Act. Later. The suburbs dee lion is declared void on the ground of the letter given by Mr Wilford to Mulvaney.