ORGANISER’S CLAIM

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 259, 30 September 1936, Page 2

ORGANISER’S CLAIM

AGAINST DEMOCRAT PARTY. CASE FOR DEFENCE. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, Sept. 29. The adjourned hearing of the claim by H. J. Baulf for salary allegedly due against officials ot the former Democrat Party was resumed in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr Wyvern Wilson to-day. Evidence for plaintiff was continued. Mrs Susan Mabel Milne, a member of the committee, said that after a committee meeting in August or September Baulf’s account was discussed and Donald and Denny raised the subject. “Donald said, ‘that will have to bo paid, but Harry (meaning Baulf) will have to wait.’ After a later meeting Denny submitted the accounts to Donald, a*sking, ‘What about Harry?’ Donald said, ‘I will see that they are paid’.” Since the case had commenced Donald said said to witness in conversation : “1 am prepared to admit what Harry said is right.” Opening the case for the defence, Mr North (representing W. Goodfellow) said the principal question was whether he was entitled to look beyond the organisation to the individual members. Counsel outlined the history of the formation of the party and said that after the break occurred with Goodfellow in January, 1935. as letters between them showed, Davy bega.n to “flirt” with Donald, who was then coming to the fore. An interesting fact that emerged from the accounts was that Donald got back the £ISOO that he guaranteed to the party’s funds, having received two cheques of over £7OO each. “A peculiar thing,” said Mr North, “is that Baulf has been paid all that was owing to him by his relatives, of whom Donald is one, I say that this money was a loan, so whether this is really an action by Baulf or his relatives, who wish to reimburse themselves, cannot he ascertained. The central executive has not been sued.”

The first witness for the defence, William Goodfellow, company director, said it was originally intended that the party consist of fifteen prospective members of Parliament and that these should control the balance of power, with reciprocal free trade as the main plank. He had never intended to provide more than £IOOO. It was untrue that he had promised to give £SOOO to the party fund of £15,000. Witness said that at one of the first meetings of the party Davy mentioned that he would like to engage Baulf as local orf/miser. Baulf came to see witness and asked if the party was financial, as he had had some unhappy experiences of political parties. Witness said that he paid Baulf’s salary for two months and kept the party going for six months. In November witness undertook to raise £IOO a month for four months prior to instituting a public campaign for the fund in March. Up to then he understood that plaintiff had been paid. The funds were sufficient to pay him up to the date of witness’s resignation. Witness had paid £1516 into the party, including money collected from friends. In addition, he made loans to Davy, which had been repaid. Witness had not been repaid any of the £1516. He said J. B McKinney, country organiser, received £6 a week. He paid several cheques to McKinney. Witness said he did not attend any meetings of the Auckland executive after March, and was not present at any meetings which J. B. Donald attended. Witness said he knew nothing of the £3OOO fund controlled by T. C. A. Hislop and Davy. He would consider such a fund most improper. In Juno he suggested to Donald that he should call up his guarantees so that the party could be put back on a sound basis. Witneks said he would never have agreed to pay a car allowance of 6d a mile. He considered 4d a mile sufficient. In answer to Mr Dickson (for plaintiff) witness said he would accept no responsibility in this case, even for moneys claimed before his resignation. He admitted being a member of the executive anl paying Davy’s salary up to August, 1935.

“OFF THE RAILS.” “I attended meetings up to then to try to salvage the party,” stated witness. “It had gone off the rails. Reciprocal trade as a policy, which was *he only thing I was interested in, had been relegated to the background. Its finances had also gone off the rails. There was not much money owing, but I objected to the collecting of money from people whose political feelings were opposed to the original policy of the party.” At no time, said witness,., had he told Baulf he would not be responsible for his wages, but Baulf was at the meeting in March when witness said he would find no more money for the party. Up to August, however, witness continued to pay Davy’s salary, having promised to do so. Witness said that at the last meeting of the central executive in Wellington he had*’ made a final attempt to regain control of the party by gaining control of the finances. “If I could control the finances 1 could dictate the policy,” said Goodfellow.

“That 4s politics, is it?” asked Mr Wilson.

“Unfortunately yes, sir,” witness replied. Witness said he understood that Baulf’s wages were to be £4. That was what Davy had told him. He would repudiate a further claim for wages because he did not know of any arrangement other than that plaintiff should be paid £4 a week and be engaged by the month.

Prior to 1934 witness had subscribed to and supported the Reform Party-, he stated in answer to Mr Butler (for Davy). He had helped to form the Democrat Party purely to advocate reciprocal trade. Witness agreed that the Government had in 1933 cancelled a contract for the supply of coal to the railways in which the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company was concerned.

On the production by Mr Butler of a letter of which Goodfellow admitted authorship, Mr North raised an objection on the grounds that it was irrelevant.

“Many things could have been said about the inner workings of this business that were better left unsaid,” remarked Mr North.

The Magistrate ruled the letter out of order. In regard to wages, Goodfellow told Mr Butler that probably the wages agreed to be paid to Baulf were £4 a week and they were subsequently increased to £6. After the organisation was formed lie took it that the Dominion executive was responsible for the payment of Baulf’s wages and other matters. After his resignation, he said,

he washed his hands of the whole campaign. Witness said he did not continue to make payments after March except for past commitments. To Mr North, Goodfellow said that in July, 1935, he had tried to have Davy removed from the central executive, but the meeting, he said, would not have passed any motion that he wished.

PLAINTIFF’S PREDICAMENT. Plaintiff, said Mr Brown, was rather like a dog at a football match. He did not know who was his master. The Magistrate: Well, no one seems to be whistling for him. Mr Brown submitted that plaintiff wus engaged by Davy and Davy alone, and it was for the Court to decide whether the engagement was on behalf of that nebulous body, the Democrat Party. At the time his client, J. B. Donald, was not a member of the party. Counsel said Baulf was employed by Davy. The Magistrate said that while plaintiff took his instructions from Davy, that did not necessarily make Davy the principal. Questioned by Mr Brown (for J. B. Donald) Donald said he did not enter into any personal arrangement with plaintiff to pay wages. He did not give his personal guarantee to pay moneys owing. He had brought the matter up with Davy in Wellington and Davy had replied that if the party “went,” plaintiff would be paid. If the party did not, plaintiff would not be paid. Mr Dickson interposed that all this was new to his client (Baulf). Donald said he had spoken to Mrs Milne because he understood from Baulf’s evidence that he did not hold him personally liable. He had never signed any application to join the party. “Baulf said I received payment for the furniture in the rooms in the British Chambers, and that I seized the furniture. I want to deny that,” said witness. “The rooms were let without payment, except for 10s a weak for the lift. I had certain furniture in the room, and I said they could have it if they liked to pay me £3O. I have not been paid, nor have I received the 10s a week. The rooms are the same at present as when they were left. I thought it was best in view of the trouble that the rooms should be left as they were, so I changed the lock., I have ~ made several inquiries about the books from Baulf and Denny, the treasurer, but they said they did not know where they were. I am not urging on this action.” Witness detailed his financial transactions with Baulf. He said Baulf came to him last December very perturbed and said Davy had promised to send him £2l, as he needed the money to pay his wages. Witness gave him liis own cheque for £2l on the understanding that it was to be repaid immediately. Davy’s cheque arrived in . April. “He said he was going to lose his house and furniture,” said witness. “I felt sorry for him, but said that any money I lent him must be on a business footing. I paid all the debts he had outstanding. I said he might collect some money from the Democrat Party, and he gave me an irrevocable order for this money. Baulf said in evidence that I pleaded with him not to add me to the action. I want to deny that. He is not my cousin.” “You look more like his uncle,” said the Magistrate. “Later I asked him if it was fair to sue me in view of all I had done for him,” witness continued. “I want to clear the suggestion that Baulf is bringing this action to try to force money out of various people.” The case was adjourned.