THE WAITOTARA ELECTION.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7915, 2 December 1887, Page 3

THE WAITOTARA ELECTION.

[1)Y TELEGRAPH. J Waxganui, Thursday. The' election petition case, in which the Hon. John Bryoe and others petition against the return of George Hutchison as member for Waitotara fn the House of Representatives, was commenced this morning before his Honor the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Williams. The petitioner was represented by Mill. D. Bell, of Wellington, and Mr S. I*. Fit/.herbert, of Wanganni ; for the respondent Mr W. T. L. Travors appeared, assisted by Mr Hutchison, of Hawera. In opening the case for the petitioners Mr Bell enumerated the charges which were re!ie<l upon to substantiate the petition. He said that the petitioners had been asked to file particulars, and hence the nvmber of charges, by reason of unavoidable repetitions in some cases, appeared very large. It was not improbable that in some cases the evidence would not be found absolutely satisfactory or sufficient to support the particular charge, but that was a difficulty which always nmst be contended against in election eases, as the evidence was drawn almost entirely from the enemy's camp. Regarding the charge of general treating there was a difference between the common law and the Act of Parliament on the point, inasmucli as the former made it an offence to treat before, during, or after an election, while in New Zealand the Act only provided against treating on the polling day. Mr Travels here stated that he would ask the Court to rule as to how far evidence would be held to be admissible on the question of treating on days other than the polling day. Mr Bell said that they were prepared with authorities on the point. He then went on to refer to the actions of the late Minister of Lands in authorising leave of absence to men on a survey party to come in to register their votes, and in authorising pay while absent. Such action, however, would not afl'ecfc the present case unless it could be shown that there was agency, and that Mr Ballance had acted at ttic respondent's request ; but lie (Mr Bell) was confident that they would be able to prove agency in some cases at all events. Mr Bell also raised the question as to whether witnesses who were themselves guilty of corrupt practices would be held liable for any act sworn to by themselves, urging that if they truly answered all questions put to them they would be indemnified by the Court from any punishment, though if the Court saw fit it might report the matter, and the person in that case would be struck off the roll of electors for three years. Evidence was then called as follows : — E. N. Leffeton, returning officer for Waitotara, gave formal evidence. Garland Woon, registrar of electors for sfcho Waitotara electoral district, produced 'the electoral roll and the claims to vote. He stated he supplied several hundred forms of claims to vote to the respondent, who was instrumental in placing a very large number of names on the electoral roll. Cross-examined : AVhenevev he had any doubt as to the right of any applicant to have bis name on the roll, or whenever any name was challenged, he referred such name to the police, and made such other enquiries as he deemed necessary before allowing the name to be placed on the roll. Ke-examined : The respondent took a list of a number of claims to vote from persons at Karoi, in order that they might be verified by a responsible resident there. Each name on the list was initialed by the person to whom it was referred, anil the list was returned to the registrar, either through the post or by the respondent. Mr Fitzherbert put in a bill of sale over the furniture of one E. Legrand Jacob, hotelkeeper at Waverley, in favor of the respondent. Edwin Legrand Jacob stated that he was licensee of the Clarendon Hotel at Waverley. He entered into negotiations for the possession of the hotel with the previous licensee about the middle of June and entered iuto possession on the ■ 15th of September, two days before the nominations for Waitotara. He raised a portion of the money for the purpose of purchasing the stock by a bill of sale over the furniture to tho respondent, who Guaranteed witness's account at the Bank of New South Wales. Witness produced his ledger, and read a letter showing that his vote was promised to the respondent before entering into negotiations for possession of the hotel. Witness was a member of respondent s committee at Patea, but not at Waverley. Believed that Mason was chairman of the committee at AVaverley on nomination day. Two days after entering into possession of the Hotel witness gave a free lunch to friends. On the polling day there were a good many people about, and_ Mason shouted for all hands in the evening, and the hotel books showed that Mason was charged £2 11s. That was for champagne supplied. The only benefit respondent received in connection with the bill of sale over the furniture was the legal work of drawing up the deeds and the re-conveyance of the property to witness. Witness had received a bill of costs for that work dated the 19th of November. Robert Bright stated that he saw the respondent on the polling day, and told him that he (witness) had lost his section at Waverley. Respondent replied that witness need not lose it as he (respondent) would lease him the section for two years if he would fence it. Witness had voted when respondent made this promise, and not a word was said by respondent to witness on the subject of voting. John Flowerday gave evidence as to a charge of personation. He stated that he did not sign any claim to be placed on the roll, and the signed application produced was not his writing. He admitted, however, giving verbal authority to have his name placed on the roll. Reuben Baldwin, a gardener at Patea, stated that he was formerly custodian of the Paten, hospital. Witness saw respondent in Patea about the time of the election. Had no conversation with respondent about the loss of his (witness's) appointment as custodian of the hospital or re-appointment. Had no conversation at that time with any other person on the subject. John Biillance having made affirmation, stated that he was a niember of the late Government, as Minister of Lands, Defence, and Native Affairs, and was member for the Wanganui electorate, whieli adjoins that of Waitotara. Was not aware that there were any men in the Maungakaretu district who bad votesin the Wanganui district, but the question was raised as to whether the railway men would have any facilities given them to record their votes. The respondent mado application to witness as a Minister, and asked if the Public Works Department had issued any orders on the subject of- workmen having facilities to vole. After a conversation with the respondent wituess telegraphed to tho Colonial Secretary to know what arrangements could be made to enable men to record their vote?. Witness sent the reply from the Colonial Secretary to the respondent. Witness also telegraphed to Mr M'Kerrow, Surveyor-General, abouttheMaungakaretu men who were out with a survey party. The rule in regard to survey men, as witness was informed by the SnrveyorGeneral, was that the men might have leave of absence to record their votes and one day's pay only. Witness's object in making iirst inquiry of the SurveyorGeneral was to have a general rule laid down, so that all men engaged on public works, railways, and survey of roads should have the same privileges allowed them with regard to voting. Witness's attention was particularly directed to the case of the Maungakaretu survey men because they were in an isolated position, and a general order made on the department would not reach the party unless specially communicated with. A. D. Wilson, surveyor, stated that he lfad charge of the survey party at Maungakaretu in September last. The men intended going to vote before instructions were received on the subject. The men had in fact asked to get away to the election before the instructions came to hand, and had already worked overtime in order to obtain leave of absence. George Harrison, the foreman of the road party, produced the instructions he had received from the last witness, which it was discovered were dated the 3rd of October, a week after the polling. The men, witness said, had recorded their votes irrespective of the instructions that they should be allowed leave of absence and one day's pay. At this stage the Court was adjourned till 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.