CASE AGAINST MR. ROWE FOR ELECTION EXPENSES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4482, 25 March 1876, Page 2

CASE AGAINST MR. ROWE FOR ELECTION EXPENSES.

. In the .Resident Magistrate's Court, Coromandel, yesterday, Mr. James Foley sued Mr. Wm. Howe, M.H.R. Tlio particulars of plaintiff's demand were:—" To thr-3 days engaged as electioneering agent for you at Coromandel as agreed, £5; 2£ days 1 board:for seven of your voters, at 65., £5 ss; money paid to messenger (Thomas Dunn), to warn your voters at the Tiki to come to Coromandel, £1 ss; refreshments to seven of"?" your voters, and their friends for 2£ days, £6; total, £17 10s," Mr. Macdonald appeared for the defendant. Plaintiff deposed: lam an hotel keeper at Coromandel. On the sth January, Mr. Howe came to me and asked if 1 would support him. I told him that I had not quite made up. my miod, as I* was going for Sir George Grey. Afterwards he said if I would support him he would pay for whatever I was out of pocket. He spoke of • the electers at the Tiki. I said they were poor men aud could not come in without they were paid their day's wages and their refreshment afterwards. As he was going . away he told me not to bo nice about it, but to do whatever I could for him. Cross-ex-amined by Mr. Macdonald; I may or may not have electioneering influence. The result of my bargain with Mr. JRowe was that I was to do what I could aud lie would not be nice about the pay. I was to bring in the voters" * from the Tiki, and feed them and drink * them. That was my bargain. This was the ' case for the plaintiff. Mr. Macdonald said he should not call any evidence, but should rely upon the plaintiff's own state- . nient, and the Corrupt Practices at Election Act as a defence. While he did that, and there left the case for judgment, he should not be doing justice to Mr. Rowe in his public position unless he stated that Mr. v Howe's sole employment of the plaintiff was: centained in the written authority signed by Mr. Howe, which the plaintiff had put in evidence. In that writing there was nothing fco infringe the statute, but plaiutiff had not been content with that, but had tacked on other, employment. The Court said Mr. Foley's evidence put the case within the statute, and judgment must be for the defendant. Had it not been for Mr. Macdonald's explanation, the judgment would have been without costs; as it was, he should give costs, £2 17s.