ELECTION PETITION.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7958, 24 January 1888, Page 3

ELECTION PETITION.

(Before his Honor the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Gillies.) The further hearing of the petition against the election of Mr James Carroll for the Eastern Maori district was continued yesterday. Mr Rees appeared in support of the petition, Mr Cornford and Mi Dick appearing for tho respondent. Arama Karaka was the first witness examined, his evidence being confirmatory to a large extent of that given by the two witnesses on Saturday, and reported in yesterday's issue. According to Arama ■ another native named Te Kani was respondent's agent, and promised football costumes to those who voted for Carroll. There were some drunken Maoris abont on the day of the election, and Arama was told bysomebody that theliquorwbich caused thedruukennesswas provided byTe Kani. During the examination of Arama a little mild excitement occurred. It was led np to by the witness being very positive that the 7th of September (the polling day) was the day before the 6th of September. After this had been got over the witness was' shown a telegram, dated at Hastings on the 12th of September, and signed by Te Kani. Mr Kelly, who was acting as interpreter, translated tho telegram, "I am in trouble; do not distribute the ball and clothes." This translation was objected to, when it transpired that " distributed " could not be got out of the Maori words, and that a more correct rendering would be, '< lam in trouble; by-and-bye clothes and ball will be sent." Arama had refrained trom claiming a football costume because he thought he should learn the game before taking a costume. Popoki Knrupai was the next witness. He deposed that Te Kani addressed the Maoris at Tapuaeharuru on the 2nd of September, and told them he had got food which Mr Carroll sent up for the people who should vote for him. The witness's next statement, as interpreted, caused quite a little scene. Mr Kelly interpreted the words of the witness so as to convey the meaning that Te Kani gave a native £1 to pay expenses, and Mr Cornford objected to the translation, and stated that the _ witness had only expressed his belief that the money was to pay expenses. A short discussion on the question arose, Mr Justice Gillies, Mr Rees, and Mr Cornford taking part, and it was decided to release Mr Kelly from any further responsibility, Mr J. P. Hamlin being sworn as interpreter. The witness then continued to the effect that the £1 was given in order that the people of the recipient, who was a chief named Hohepa, should vote for Carroll. Two bottles of

}, hrandy were shouted, and Te Kani said that those who voted for Carroll should get football costumes. On the 6th of September a bag of sugar and a bag of 1 flour were given for the polling place at 2 Oruanuij and on the following day Te 3 Kani paid for a box of biscuits and a b,ig ,t of sugar for the natives. There waa a lot of drunkenness, Te Kaui paying for the I, liquor. Witness voted for Carroll on a account of the football costumes, and on , account of tbe food, and on account of 1 receiving ss. 3 Arapeta Te Kuripai corroborated tbe t last witness's evidence as to Te Kani j giving Hobepa £1, and deposed to four 1 other Maoris getting 5s each, t Pitiriri and Potene were the remaining . witnesses examined as the charges of ? bribery in tbe Taupo district, tbeir cvi- ) dence corroborating that of tbe previous 3 witnesses with relation to Te Kani'n . promises of food and football costumes, g Mr Rees stated that he had subpoenaed Te Kani, who appeared to have taken a prominent part, and he wonld be examined on the following day. In the . meantime he (Mr Rees) would call cvi- . dence in relation to the Rotorua charges. Taupe te Iwi Tere deposed that prior to the election be had a conversation with Carroll oa political matters, and got some beer from him. W ituess was asked to use » his influence on Carroll's behalf, receiving j the promise that he should not be forgotten. Witness also received Bs, and Carroll expressed bis willingness to give money to agents to carry on the election, [ but stated that the question of flour and :' sugar would have to stand over till after : the election. This occurred about a week before the polling day. Three gallons of beer were paid for. Mr Cornford pointed out that defend- ! ant was not charged with giving three gallons of beer and Ss to any persons a [ week before the election, the petition setting out five gallons of spirits and Bs, on the day before the polling day, the 6th f of September. Respondent ha*d treated | the charge ns frivolous, knowing that he Was not in the distriot on the 6th of Septeraber, and consequently had brought down no witnesses to rebut what was manifestly absurd. Now tbe five galt lons of spirits had become three gallons of beer, and the 6th of September was put back a week. If tbat sort of thing could goon respondent might be charged with anything. Mr Rees urged that im the interests of the public every facility for amending an error should be allowed. No doubt "spirits" was set down in the petition, but it appeared to have been beer. The Chief Justice expressed himself in favor of great latitude being allowed in the endeavor to get evidence of what was prejudicial to the public. Mr Justice Gillies took the very opposite view. The Act was a. highly penal one, involving heavy punishments for certain offences, and should be interpreted strictly. It was an absurdly-framed Act, and while professing to bave for its object public morality it tended to destroy it. A man charged with doing a certain thing on a certain day, at a certain place, and knowing he was out of tbe district at the time, might treat the charge with contempt as a frivolous one and take po steps to bring rebutting evidence, 'lhen if the charge and the date were altered be might be in tbe position of not being able to brine evidence before the Court in time. The witness bad deposed to an occurrence a week liefnre the polling (lav, and spoke of three gallon-* of lieer, while the petition spoke of five gallons of spirits on Ihe day before the polling day. Mr Rees thought the word "spirits" was a mistake. ' Mr Justice Gillies pointed out tbat the date was also wrong, and the IBe gallons had become, three. Mr Rees said bis instructions contained tbe words " three gallons." Mr Justice Gillies said the petition stated five gallons. Mr Cornford said the particulars furnished to bim set out five gallons of spirits on tbe day before the polling day. Respondent was not in the district on that iday, and knowing that he had treated the charge as a baseless one. Mr Rees put a stop to the discussioa by abandoning the charge. Tamati Irirangi, a Waiapu native, deposed that prior to the election William Broughton gave him 10s to bny spirits with. Witness did not know why the money was given, bnt knew that Broughton had never given him money before nor since tbat time. Broughton simply said " There's ten shillings, get a drink with it, and you vote for Carroll." Witness could not say on what day the money was given, but the occurrence took place at Waipawa, at 8 o'clock in the morning. Witness spent the money at Moroney's hotel. Broughton slept at Waipawa the night before. This was not more than a week before the election. It was during the time the Porangahau block was being investigated at Waipawa. A native named Te Moti also got £5. The money was not asked for, and when it was given no one asked why it was given. Mr Cornford pointed out tbat in this charge also the evidence was at variance with the petition, which set forth tbat Ihe money was given at Hastings on the day before the polling day. The Chief Justice suggested that Mr Broughton should be called. This was agreed to, and the Court adjourned till this (Tuesday) morning.