CLAIM FOR SALARY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 236, 18 September 1936, Page 7

CLAIM FOR SALARY

Organiser’s Case Against Democrat Leaders

“HE WAS RUDE TO ME”

By Telegraph—Press Association.

WELLINGTON, Sept. 17.

The allegation that when he rang Mr T. C. A. Hislop, leader of the Democrat Party, with a request for an advance on his salary Mr Hislop was very rude to him was made by Harry Charles Baulf during the hearing In the Magistrate’s Court to-day of his claim against former Democrat leaders for an amount allegedly due to him as salary for party organisation work. “He said he would see me in hell before he would give me a cent,” said plaintiff.

Addressing the witness Baulf, Mr Dickson said: “You rang Hislop on the telephone once!” Witness: Yes, I rang him once and asked him for an advance, as I knew he had £lOOO of the party funds. He was very rude to me. He said he would see me in hell before he would give me a cent. Mr Elliot objected to further questioning on these lines on the ground that Hislop had not had a chance of being cross-examined on the point. . Mr Dickson mentioned that Hislop was at present arranging to put his financial commitments with the Democrat Party to arbitration. Robert Alexander Denny, insurance inspector, who was the next witness, said that Davy had approached him to tell him that’ he was forming a new party. “He asked me would Ibe in. I said: ‘Yes, provided the finances are all right.’ ” At a subsequent meeting the organisation known as the Democrat Party was formed, and in April or June 1935, witness became treasurer and a member of the Auckland committee. He acted in an honorary capacity. Baulf was supposed to put in statements

of his accounts fortnightly. Those statements were put before the. committee of which Donald was chairman. Baulf had raised the question of the money owing to him before Donald, and Donald had said that it would be paid but that Baulf would have to wait, It was generally understood that the money would come from Wellington. Baulf had asked at various times about the money and had always been told that it would be paid. The accuracy of the figures had not, to witness’s knowledge, ever been challenged. “Where are the books now?” asked Mr Dickson in referring to the question of the accounts. “Oh, I don’t know. I last saw them in a drawer in a desk in the office,” said witness. money for organisation. Where did you receive the money from to ruu this organisation!—“Except for the last cheque for £3oo—and it was received direct from Wellington —it was banked by Donald. Presumably it had come from Wellington.” Under cross-examination by Mr North, witness said that Goodfellow’s early advances to cover salaries were in the nature of advances to the organisation to put it on its feet. Witness said that he knew nothing of any refunds to Goodfellow of the money he had advanced. Donald had paid into the Auckland trust account at the bank approximately £5O in June, £75 in July and £125 in August. Witness was not aware of where the money was coming from. They were to have received £lOO a month from Wellington.

Replying to Mr North, witness said that Baulf put in a list of his expenses each month. He was paid irregularly. Denny was questioned by counsel concerning the books of the organisation. They had been kept, he eaid, by Miss Foster. He had asked about the books following the election and had been told that she did not know where they were. Spencer Bruce Clark, public accountant, of Wellington, said he had become interested in the party some months after its inception. He was appointed Dominion secretary on March 26, 1935. When further questions had been put regarding the finances of the party, the Magistrate, Mr Wyveirn Wilson, remarked: “It doesn’t look as though they had unearthed anyone to be Minister of Finance.” Mr Dickson: In the shadow Mr Donald was to be the Minister of Finance. Witness said that £lOO a month was to have been paid to ~nd, but it was not always paid regularly, and to his knowledge the Dominion executive had never objected to Baulf’s claim. If Hislop had handed over the balance of the £3200 what would have happened to these accounts!—“The accounts would have been paid.” Under questioning by Mr North concerning the evidence of Hislop, heard in Wellington, witness said that it was definitely organisation money. “I have no doubt of it,” he said. “Did you object to £lOOO going to him!” asked counsel. At this Mr Elliot objected on the ground of irrelevancy. Mr North was allowed to continue. Witness, in answering, said that ho did not approve. The hearing was adjourned till Tuesday week.