ELECTION PETITION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXI, Issue 10269, 10 February 1894, Page 5

ELECTION PETITION.

THE WAITEMATA CASE;

ELECTION VOID. [Per Press Association.! AUCKLAND, Feb. 9. The election petition case. Palmar v. Monk, was continued to-day. Ernest W. Monk (son of Mr B. Monk) was further examined by Mr Banme for the petitioner. He said it was not in November, 1892,but on Nov. 22,1898, that he draw j£B from the Savings Bank. (Bank book produced, with entry of withdrawal date November, 1892). The figures 1892 must have been a mistake of the Savings Bank people. He never made any arrangement with Gibbes or with Deacon £or refreshments to ho supplied to electors by Deacon. At the conclusion of his evidence the witness asked the Court it it would give him an indemnity with regard to the answers he had made relative'to hie enrolment as an elector before he p&mo of age, and Mr Baumo undertook to.' see that a proper application was made at the conclusion of the case. The Chief Justice said could only grant an indemnity agwjist 1 using evidence adduced in the court in connection with any criminal charge for making a false claim for enrolment. Mr Baume said there was no intention of setting the criminal law in operation against young Monk. The next witness called was James Stewart, a young man, who deposed that he was the son of Daniel Stewart, of Helensville. He could not say whether he was Mr Monk’s agent. He received no direct appointment, but he did things for Mr Monk. He was acting for Mr Monk, at Helensville, and did all he could, but whether ho was acting as agent or not he could not say. It was agreed between him and Mr Monk that he should do all he could for the latter at Helensville, but Mr Monk did not in so many words appoint him as an agent. Mr Button said the respondent admitted that Stewart was understood to act as Mr Monk’s agent. Witness was examined as to some meetings he convened. 1' Mr Justice Conolly said the answers I given by the witness were absurd. It was quite evident that witness was not divulging the whole of the proceedings at the meetings. In answer to questions as to papers in connection with the election which he was subpoenaed to produce, witness said he had not kept them after the election. It was not till after the election that Mr Monk ifpoko to witness about a letter which witness had written to Ernest Monk. Mr Monk said Megson had complained to witness about his son’s action, and had requested witness to write to Ernie, saying he wished him to stand out, as he was doing him a lot of harm by his rash acta. Mr Monk seemed to be much annoyed, and afraid that his son’s talk would do him harm; At the meeting young Monk told Megson that he did not know what he was saying. Witness remembered meeting his boat, with gum-diggers from Shelly Beach on hoard. He did not say to the gumdiggers, ** Now, boys, come along and get something to eat.” He told them they had better go and get breakfast. The Chief Justice •. Do you intend to disavow any intention of treating these men to food on that day ? Bemember, it is a very serious question, and perjury is, in the estimation of every one, a vile crime.

Witness; I don’t remember inviting them to get refreshments. I don’t know whether they got refreshments free or not* Mr Justice Conolly; The impression created in my mind by your evidence, I feel inclined to say, is that I don’t believe a word you say. You have been shuffling during the whole of your evidence in a most disgraceful manner. Witness again denied that he had invited the men to take refreshments* The evidence of T. W. Deacon, jun., hotel-keeper, was next taken. He said he might have seen Ernest Monk when he was working for his father, hut had no conversation with him in reference to the election. Might have spoken of it casually } they never spoke together of any arrangements for the election day at ■h-umeu, and “ I never wrote to him concerning it, nor ho to me.” Never spoke or wrote to Newman about arrangements for the polling-day at Kumeu, nor to any other of Mr Monk’s supporters on the sub--11 jecb. Supplied refreshments on the polling-day under instructions from his father. Mr Baume t Did your father give you authority to supply beer on Gibhes’ order ? No; he gave it on Gibhes’ account. His father told him on the election day to give beer to people who came from a distance. He may have taid beer and sandwiches. When the Court resumed at two o'clock this afternoon counsel tot both sides retired for a private consultation. Upon returning into court a quarter of an hour later the last witness. Deacon, was placed in the box. Mr Baume said: I have had an opportunity of consulting with my learned friend. Ido not propose to examine this witness any further. ! Mr Button also intimated that he did * not wish to cross-examine the witness. * Mr Baume said: I now beg to intimate \ that I have closed my case, and that I ~i have no evidence to offer other than that j which I have already placed before the * court. | Mr Button said :We have had an oppor- | tunity of conferring with counsel for the '■ petitioner, and wa have come to the coni elusion that after the evidence which has ! been placed before you, it would be quit® •I hopeless to continue the case any longer, or to deny the respon dent’s responsibility for the action of his agents. We deny knowledge by Mr Monk of these acts of bis agents, but wa cannot get over his responsibility, or that this petition comes within the ecope of the English cases which have been quoted, in which candidates are made responsible for the acta of the agents. Consequently, we do not propose to raise any defence. At the same time Mr Monk desires me to say regarding his want of knowledge of these actions of his agents, that he had been sway from home for a considerable time almost continuously before the election. He has shown me his diary or note book, which shows that he has not been home for fortyeight hours during the whole of this time. It is a very wide district, and he had necessarily to he away from home a great deal. This will account for bis not possessing knowledge of what was taking place, and for the fact that he knew nothing whatever about these acts, and he denies emphatically that he knew about them. I may point out to your Honors that the evidence does not show that Mr Monk had any personal knowledge of these acts.

Mr Baumo said Mr Palmer had not been guilty of any malice in this case, and had no desire to attack the personal honour,of Mr Monk. Mr Button said they did not charge Mr Palmer with having instituted this proceeding through malice, but simply from a wish to unseat Mr Monk. The Chief Justice said: "The course which tho case has taken leaves very little for us to do. We intimate now that we shall report that the Waitemata seat is voided by bribery and treating by Mr Monk's agents, though without his knowledge, being committed by his agents, for whom he was responsible. Mr Monk will have to pay the petitioner’s; costs. The previous Act provided absolute disqualification for a certain period, but the amended Act of 1893 gives discretion in framing a report. In this case we ehall report, as we didin tho case of the Te Aioha petition, that the disqualification of the unseated member shall be for one year. We do not think it would be fair that the ousted candidate should be allowed to be a candidate at the nest election for the same scat. At the request of Mr Baume, the Judges

Mid thaywaro prap*redte«l*e»^^. fic *£* of indanmity, under Section i9O of the ElectioaPefitiona Act, to 4 ty&Mn forty in comber, excepting E. W. uoa# and Jt Stewart, go aa to prevent tjeiafrom suffering tie consequences o! any illegal act disoloMd in their evidence. Am for the two witnewM named, they would be prepared to hear ao. application for certificates for them to-morrow.