ELECTION EXPENSES.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 2 July 1926, Page 10

ELECTION EXPENSES.

A SCHEDULE CHALLENGED. CLAIM FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. (BY TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION.) AUCKLAND, July 1. Under the Legislature Act or 1908 a candidate for Parliamentary honours is required •within seventy days to forward a. return of his electoral expenses to the returning officer for the district.

During the last general election Mr. William Jones, who was the successful candidate for Marsden, failed to comply with the provisions of the 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 March 8 Mr. 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 Mcl'nues and Angus John McKay, and they called upon the returning officer, Frank Bird, to take proceedings against Mr. Jones for failing within the prescribed time to put in a true and correct account of lxis expenses. The returning officer refused to . take action, and mandamus proceedings were instituted.

The action wasdreard by Mr. Justice Stringer in the Supreme Court this morning, Mr. J- H. L oxford, instructed by Mr. Trimmer, appearing for Samuel Mclrines and Angus John McKay, farmers, of Whangarei, and Mr. Paterson appeared for Mr. Frank Bird.

The statement of,claim set out that on January 11, 1926, William Jones filed an account of payments made by him, or on his behalf, in the conduct or nianagement of his 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 1 on February 17. This did not comply with the Act, and at the instigation of the plaintiff Samuel Mclimes. Mr. Jones filed a further account on March 8, nor did this comply with the Act No further action was taken by plaintiffs at this stage, as defendant requested them to wait pending a reply from the chief electoral officer, Wellington, to whom defendant had written for instructions. On May 3 Samuel Mclnnes sent a written demand to defendant calling upon him to take proceedings.. On June 4 the plaintiffs’ solicitor sent a final demand to the defendant to take proceedings. On June 5 defendant replied, refusing to take the said proceedings.

It is claimed that William Jones transmitted an account that was false, in that he opiitted to include, or concealed, items amounting to over £9O, expenses incurred through hire of halls, advertising, and printing during his campaign. The motion for a. writ of mandamus, moved hv Mr. Luxford, was that Frank Bird returning officer, should be ordered to take proceedings against William Jones, on the grounds (1) that Mr. Jones was a candidate for the Marsden electorate at the general election held on November 4, 1925: (2) that iie did not, within 70 days after the day on which' the result of the election was given, transmit a true account in accordance with the provisions of section 173 of the Legislature Act, 1908. of all payments made by him or on his behalf; (3) that he has not yet transmitted a true account; (4) that he has transmitted an account that is false On a material point; (o) that plaintiffs have made a demand that defendant take proceedings,-,,-uud that defendant has refused, add 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 corruption. That, however, did not lessen the fact that there had been negligence on the part of defendant. Outlining the case for the defence. Mr. Paterson stated that defendant, as returning officer, was an officer of the Crown, acting as such and under the control and direction of the chief electoral officer appointed under, the Legislature • Act, 3 908, and also under the control and authority of the Minister in charge of tlie Electoral Department. ' / On January 11, 1928, said counsel, Jones filed an account of payments made by him, but this account was amended on two occasions. As it was alleged that the returns were not true, and were false in certain particulars, on May 13 the plaintiff McTnnes accepted the explanation given by Mr. Jones: If Mr. 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 liis part, and defendant had exercised proper discretion in the matter.

Counsel also urged that plaintiffs had no specific and legal right to call on defendant to take proceedings. After quoting at considerable length on the legal aspect, Mr. Paterson said that before a writ was issued the court should he satisfied that the charges had. lieen proved. They were grave clpirges, and might constitute malpractice. If the payments said to have been made by (Mr. Jones were totalled up and added to the account he submitted it would reach over £2OO. That •would amount to corrupt practice, and he would lie liable to be unseated. It had been suggested that he had made a. false return; that in itself constituted an offence. Counsel submitted that the facts did not call for a writ of mandamus. In reply, Mr. Luxford said that the first question was whether there was discretion in defendant. Plaintiffs had to show that there had been a breach of the Act, and it was considered that there was no discretion oil the part of defendant. Whilst there had been a breach of a section of the Act, there was no ulterior motive in taking action. the olaintiffs merely contending that as electors they _ had a right to call for an investigation. After legal argument his Honour reserved his decision.