ELECTION PETITIONS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVII, Issue 11188, 9 February 1897, Page 5

ELECTION PETITIONS.

[Per Press Association.! ■WELLINGTON, Feb. 8. During the hearing of the Wairatapa petition case, evidence was given that in a case of alleged double voting, the Returning officer had examined the ballot papers at the place where the real man voted, and credited the candidate accordingly. Judge Conolly said that such a proceeding Was an interference with the secrecy of the ballot, and that the duty of the officer was to pick out the ballot papers by reference to the numbers, place them apart, record the fact, and refuse to give a vote on either side. The hearing of the petition against the election of T. Wilford for Wellington Suburbs was begun this morning before the Chief Justice and judge Conolly. Messrs Chapman and Morrison appeared for the petitioners; Messrs Skerrett and Levi for Mr Wilford. Most of the morning was taken up in opening the Case. Mr Chapman explained that the grounds relied upon were bribery by money payments, and promises to obtain the employment pf electors, and that Mr Wpford was regis-v tered on the electoral .toll in respect of a non-residential. qualification only. He proceeded to detail the names of persons alleged to have been bribed, and with respect to the other ground relied upon, he said that Mr Wilford appeared to be registered upon a freehold qualification, and that since the Act of 1896, no such qualification existed. He stated that they would produce a letter in Mr Wilford’s handwriting asking the Premier to give a post to one Mulvaney. This letter had never reached the Premier.

George Lindsay said he was the joint secretary of Mr Wilfoijd’s Mitchelltown Committees. He denied absolutely that he ever received any money from Mr Wilford, but before the election he had received .£3 6s to pay snndiy debts' owing by Mr Wilford to others. Several persons had claims for services at the previous-election, which, they stated, had not been settled, and witness told Mr Wilford that he had better give him the money to pay them. Ho got a cheque, and paid Biddle, a scrutineer, 11s, and also 7s 6d for the rent of a hall. Ho was to pay the owner of the hall some back rent, bub not finding her returned the rest of the money to Mr Wilford. A man named Spring claimed a guinea as a messenger, but the committee had only passed 10s, and ■witness refused to give him anything at all, as he would not take the 10s. Mr Chapman proceeded to examine the witness as to his feelings towards Mr Wilford, and Mr Skerrett objected unless Mr Chapman,

received permission to treat him as a hostile witness. He was then informed that if he answered truthfully he would be indemnified against any criminal proceedings, hut he denied "that ho had said it was no use ‘Mr Wilford coming to Mitchelltown unless ho squared np for the last election, or that he had promised 'anything to Messrs Braddock and Spring. In cross-examination Lindsay said that he had not received any money from Mr Wilford for his services at the 1896 election. He did not bring the books of the 1893 election; they were destroyed in a fire- at ' his house. Biddle was voted 10s by‘the committee for loss of work, and Spring 10s for services on the following day. William 'Spring, French polisher, residing 1 at • Mitchelltown, said that at the 1893 election'he was outride scrutineer , lor Mr Wilford. " At the last meetiiig of the committee prior to the election Lindsay had ' stated that there was a guinea each offered f6r two scrutineers, and as, witness knew" ‘ everybody ■ at Mitchelltown. he had" ’feetteV ;tftke the. outside of ■ the bbbtfil ’ Since' that election, . apd : until about ’-Within three months of the recent, election, he had had several conversations with Lindsay. Mr Skerrett objected to this line of examination being proceeded with, contending that it could not be said Lindsay was Mr Wilford’s agent at this time; and, furthermore, that if it was meant to contradict Lindsay’s evidence, the other side had not’laid th’e proper foundation for this.’ ■ ■ : ■

Their 'Honors ruled that the evidence was admissible. Witness continued: lie understood that Mr Wilford had not paid bis expenses last election. Oh Oct. 7, 1896, at witness’s house, Lindsay said, referring to the same thing, “I’ve got this (holding out 10s) Biddle has got his. I have his receipt and I want yours.” Witness would not accept the money and said, “1 am not going to take an interest in the election on Wilford’s behalf, and don’t think jt right to take his money.” He also said that Mr Wilford did not owe him half a sovereign; if he owed anything it was a guinea/ ' Lindsay said: “ Don’t • bite your nbse Off to spite' your face... .If you ' .don’t aftetTvarda, I suppose,; you "willgo oh for Wilford.” ; v r To Mr Skerrett: In 1893 worked hard for Mr 'Wilford, and ' was a pronounced supporter of the present Government. Did hot’take information to the, committee robin, of pollers who visited the booth. Did not ask to be paid for his day’s work in 1893, and had no recollection of Biddle asking for payment. Was offered a guinea by Lindsay in the presence of the committee when'the. half-sovereign was offered him. Afterwards looked on it as a bribe. Did not consider that it had anything to, do with the guinea/ ' ’ _ In/ answer to’further questions, witness said' that he went on Mr Hislop’s com-, mittee‘about four or five weeks before the electionj but. did not tell Mr Hislop about the Conversation with Lindsay. Charles Spring, son of the last witness, said that ho'remembered Lindsay offering his father half a sovereign, and sayingthat he,had seen Mr Wilford, who said that ho would square up the money owing at the previous election; He produced a, notebook showing that he had .paid Biddle ten shillings. Lindsay said that he would keep the money himself if Spring did not take it. To Mr Skerrett: The money -was offered as part payment of Services as scrutineer, E. J. Standen said that he was secretary of Mr Wilford’s Newtown Committee. Was not paid or promised anything for his services. Did not tell Lingard that he was getting £2 a week. .Mulvaney came to him for an introduction to the Premier, and witness not knowing the Premier, and bring anxious to help Mulvaney, who had lost one hand, took him to Mr Wilford, who said that he would oblige Mulvaney by giving him a letter of introduction to the Premier, to whom' he could tell his own tale. Nothing was said about the election'by witness or Mr Wilford. Next day Mulvaney said to him that Mr Wilford was a funny fellow, as he didn’t even ask who he was going to vote for. Witness detailed how he had been accused' by. Mr Hislop, at a political meeting, of being a paid canvasser, and how he had denied it in vigorous language. Mr Wilford had never held out to him, nor had any friend of the candidate’s held out a prospect of a clerkship, or messenger’s billet in the Government service. ' •