ORGANISER’S CLAIM

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 260, 1 October 1936, Page 2

ORGANISER’S CLAIM

LIABILITY DENIED. HINT OF FURTHER ACTION. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, ftept. 30, The claim ol 11. J. Haul! against former officials of the Democrat Party was continued to-day. Continuing his evidence, J. B. Donald said Miss Foster, his secretary, who gave evidence yesterday, was lent to the party. Cross-examined by Air Dickson (for plaintiff), witness said he certainly considered Baulf had a moral claim tor the money owing to him. •“Do you think Hislop should pay it?” asked Air Dickson. Witness: 1 understand there is sufficient money of the party in Hislop’s possession to meet the claim. I consider Hislop should pay ‘into the party the money he holds, as it belongs to the party. If the party cannot pay, then plaintiff should go without the money owing to him? —A case may be brought into Court over the funds ol the party now held in Wellington. .1 consider plaintiff's claim should he considered then. Witness added that the party owed him close on £4OO. The £ISOO overdraft had been paid, but not interest. He had looked to the central executive in Wellington for repayment of the moneys paid by him. Davy and Clark had control of the money m Wellington. _ “1 never promised to pay Baulf, said witness. “I promised to do my best to see that he was paid.” It was possible that he assured Baulf that his account would be paid, but that he would have to wait until the Wellington executive authorised payment. The only meeting witness attended in Wellington was in Alay of this year. Davy had said Baulf would have to float or sink with the Party. . . Replying to Air Dickson, witness said an account for £SO owing to Baulf was passed for payment by the Auckland committee, but lie did not think It was paid. It was of little use writing letters to Wellington, as they were not answered. Alost of the business was done by telephone. Had the Alellington executive done its part some considerable donations would have been received by the Auckland committee, instead of which Auckland had to pay some of the accounts which should have been paid from "Wellington. Mr Dickson: What have you done with the books? You got control of the room and the books. Witness: Do you suggest I have them ?

Ai r Dickson: Either you or your young lady. Witness: 1 am sorry you lake .up this attitude. 1 would like to get hold of those books myself. Air Wyvem Wilson, S.AI.: I can understand that many people would be interested in seeing that those books disappeared. Alanv people who had been connected with the party and whose names appeared in those books would wish to conceal the fact after the partv had failed, so as to he able to transfer their interests elsewhere. Donald said it was two or three months after the election that he changed the keys. The furniture was still in the room. He did not know what was the legal position. Cross-examined by Air North (appearing for AV. Goodfellow), witness said that when Davy’s attention was drawn to the amount owing to Baulf Davy refused to approve of payment oj the whole amount, but a part payment was made. . . Donald refused to give an opinion regarding Goodfelloiv’s responsibility, and stated that Baulf’s employment was in the hands of Davy. Replying to the Magistrate witness said that he first heard about £3OOO- - being paid into Hislop’s account about the end of September. When it was first collected Davy had expressed himself as being annoyed by it. AVitness was also annoyed, as he considered that the Wellington executive was not keeping its bargain with him. Two cheques of £750 each paid into witness’s account came from the £3OOO and were signed Hislop. This was in repayment of £ISOO be had paid into the party funds temporarily. , , , , • AVitness said he did not hold luniself responsible to pay Baulf if the party did not have sufficient funds. Cross-examined by Air Butjer, appearing for Davy, witness said that every candidate was promised £l5O. Witness did not get his, but ho hoped to be paid all that was owing to him. This closed tho evidence, and Air Elliot, appearing for Hislop. proceeded to address the Court.Air Elliot said the only possible persons liable were either Davy, Goodfellow or certain persons who were members of the Democrat organisation or the executive. Hislop was definitely not included. MEAIBERS AND CANDIDATES.

Actually it was a point that ho was neither a member of tlio executive nor of the organisation. There was a distinction between members of the organisation, which was a permanent party structure, and candidates, whose function was the enunciation of the policy. It was possible that a candidate might be a member of the organisation, but such a candidate had to be elected to the executive. Had there been a Democrat Party in the House, the leader would have become a member of the executive. Plaintiff had to show clear proof that Hislop was actually a “member’ of the organisation and no real evidence of that had been given. Hislop was not a contracting party. Addressing the Magistrate on behalf of plaintiff, Mr Dickson said Hislop could not deny being a member of the Democrat organisation. Alternatively, Hislop was a trustee, controlling trust funds of the organisation. He attended meetings, paid out funds for furthering the objects, and identified himself with the organisation both publicly and from the point of view of inner finance. He bad accepted all the fruits of membership and had hoped to become Prime Minister of the Dominion had the party been returned to office. Now that membership of the party was likely to be a liability, it was to be hoped that ho would not bo allowed to evade his responsibilities. Davy, counsel added, had made the original contract of employment with plaintiff, while Goodfellow was a party to it and should share responsibility for debts incurred. The latter was liable up to the time of his resignation. “One hesitates to say what one thinks of Donald,” said Mr Dickson. “His conduct in the witnessbox was unsatisfactory in that he refused to answer straight-out questions by a plain ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ ” Donald was chairman of the committee which controlled the lunds iii Auckland, and his liability could not be denied. Plaintiff would not have joined the organisation if there had not been an express guarantee for payment, especially in view of his bitter experience with other political

parties. Actually the Democrat oiganisation did not exist in law, and it was an elementary point in law that plaintiff could sue only through its officers. That was the legal position. , Mr Butler submitted that Davy s position in relation to Baulf was always substantially different from that of the others. From first to last Davy was only a paid servant, first of Goodfellow, and secondly of the Democrat organisation when it was formed. He received a salary for his activities and was not interested in tho policy the party had to propound. His relation to the party was very similar to that of Baulf, except that bv virtue of his position he had a seat on the executive - . The Magistrate thanked counsel for the legal research they had contributed to the case, and said he would make his decision known later.