TE AROHA ELECTION PETITION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8531, 3 April 1891, Page 6

TE AROHA ELECTION PETITION.

SECOND. D AX. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN REPORTER.] Te Aroha, Thursday. The hearing of the Te Aroha election petition was resumed this morning before Sir James Prendergast, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Conolly. Mr. E. Hesketh again appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the respondent. Tho interest in the case is as keen as ever, and there was a large attendance, including ladies,, in Court.

James M. Robson, examined by Mr. Hesketh, said ho was a storekeeper at Paeroa, and was a member of Mr. Allen's committee there, and he understood Mr. Nicholls was treasurer, bub he was. not sure, and could not say who was chairman. Witness only attended two committee meetings, and was only a short time at each. They were held in Mr.' Ellis' place. He arrived late. A roll was handed to each person present, and a list of names allotted to each committeeman to interview. Witness received his list. The meeting did not last more than ten minutes after he arrived, and he could not say whether the lists were made out before or after his arrival. He was also late at the second meeting. They told him they had gone through the roll, but they called it over again, in his presence, to ascertain how the candidates stood, in order that his list might be compared with the others. There was a statement made by some person present that there was an allocation of money for expenses amongst the committee. Witness told them he would take no money, and to take his name off the list. He certainly did not think the money was to be distributed amongst the voters, but that it was for expenses of some kind. He did not know how long this was before the poll. After the election ' another meeting was held. Mr. Edwards, he was certain, was present at the second meeting before the election, but he could not say whether he was at the first, and he could not recollect whether Edwards made any remark or whether any sum was put against his name. He believed it was Edwards who called over the roll, but was nob certain, while witness marked his list as to who were likely to vote for Fraser, who for Allen, and who were doubtful, and he told the result to the committee. He did nob know that any course of action was decided at that meeting, Edwards was at the table, the same as the others who were there. Marsh, Chalton, Bramley, Nicholls, Edwards, and others were present at the second meeting, to which he referred, and as far as witness could see Edwards was acting like the others. He never heard of any objection to Edwards being there or to his speaking and taking part. Witness signed the certificate as to the £40 expenses after the election as acting chairman, but he had no knowledge how tho money had been spent, and there wore only present witness, Bramley, Cock, and McKenzio at that meeting. At. the second meeting there were twelve or fourteen present. By Mr. Cooper : Mr. Buttle asked him to act on the committee, and he did not know who all his co-committeemen were. He would not swear that it was Mr. Edwards who read over the roll to him. There were four polling places worked from Paeroa, and when ho signed the voucher for £40 ss. He understood that that was the sum total of the expenses at all those places. By Mr. Hesketh: He assumed those whom he met in the committee room were committee men. They were there before him, and ib was nob his place bo object to them. Thomas Charles Hammond was again called, but did not appear, and Mr. Hesketh recalled Henry Buttle, who said he last saw Mr. Hammond last Saturday in Hamilton, and had no communication with him, directly or indirectly, since then. He did not then converse 'with him about the evidence in this case, or what he was to say. He had no idea why he was not here. He told witness on Saturday that he was coming to To Aroha, and thab he was to rido over. Mr, Hesketh produced the subpoena and affidavit of service on the 24th of March, and applied for a warrant against Hammond. He said that on the previous day he had received a telegram that Hammond had left Hamilton for Te Aroha. In reply to Mr. Justice Conolly, Mr. Hesketh said conduct money, 21s, had been given to Hammond with the subpoena. Ho should be sorry, on behalf of the petitioner that the case should be closed without hearing what Mr. Hammond had to say, as since yesterday's evidence was heard he believed he would be the most important witness. Mr. Cooper said Mr. Allen had issued a subpoena for Hammond, bub finding that he had been subpeenaed by the other side it was nob served, but they wore most desirous that he should be present. A question then arose whether the Court should adjourn until the afternoon, as Mr. Hesketh had no other witnesses to call. The Chief Justice suggested that Mr. Cooper should proceed, omitting matters relating to Mr. Hammond. Tho Paeroa case was entirely distinct from that of Hamilton. Mr. Cooper acquiesced, and called Mr. W. S. Allen, the respondent, who deposed that he resided in the district, and was on the roll for the district. Jn April last ho announced himself as a candidate, and addressed a meeting at Te Aroha, and also attended a small meeting at Cambridge, not a public meeting. Ho left for England on the 2lst of April, before the Act was passed under which the present proceedings were taken. Witness was in England up to and after the time of the poll, and sent a telegram from Exeter. Mr. Hesketh objected that the telegram was not a telegram within the meaning of the colonial statute. Mr. Cooper contended that ho was entitled to ask whether the cablegram was sent by him or by his authority. Mr. Hesketh said he would not object to Mr. Allen being asked whether he sent a cablegram from Exeter like that produced, but v not bearing his signature.

The question being put in this form witness said he had sent tho cablegram of which that produced was, no doubt, a true copy. He was under the impression that ho had signed it; bub was now convinced he had not done so, as it did not appear on the message. His nomination by Mr. Buttle was done with his knowledge and consent, and he had no knowledge of how the election was conducted, except that he left everything in the hands of Mr. Buttle. He had been for 21 years a member of the British House of Commons, and no charge of corrupt practices had ever been made against him, although he had contested the seat for New-castle-under-Ly ne five times.

By Mr. Heskefch He practically left all his election matters in the handsof Air. Battle, and adopted all that he did legally. Mr. Battle has rendered him accounts. He had from witness for the last 11 months £100, and the rest was not paid. Ho presumed to wait the issue of this trial as to whether certain things were legal or illegal. He could nob say whether one of the things was the. payment to Hammond, for he understood from the evidence yesterday that Hammond had been paid, bub ho believed one of the things was the expense of the Paeroa Committee. He knew nothing of the payment of any money by Edwards. He should say that beyond the £100 paid the amount unpaid was £600, of which ho was informed fully half was for advertising. To Mr. Cooper : The district was a very large one, and had 23 polling places, and that amount' covered the expenses of all those. -

Mr. Cooper then addressed the Court on the legal issues as to the nomination, the appointment of scrutineers, and the alleged bribery and corruption, and spoke for two hours and a-half He submitted that the words 5 " ordinary telegram" in the Act of 1890 must be read as controlled by the Electric Lines Act, 1884, and not the Electric Teletrraoh Act 1875, and were wide enough to include a cablegram. The real intention of the Legislature was that an elector should not be nominated without his consent, and if in fact his consent was obtained the only question was really one of evidence. Mr. Allen had given evidence stating that the original cablegram was sent by him personally. When, therefore, the cablegram reached New Zealand the Government became his agents for its transmission

along the colonial lines, and it became then a telegram strictly within the letter of the Act. The fact jthafc ib was, unsigned was not a fatal 'defect. Mr. Cooper then quoted authorities 'to show that • the words "I, William Shepherd Allen, i were equivalent to a signature. The statute did nob require a subscription. All it prescribes was a consent. He then fully analysed the provisions of the various Acts, and submitted that whatever might be the decision of the Court on the other points in the petition, Colonel Fraser was not entitled to the seat. Ho then submitted, in reference to the " Paeroa charges," that first it was clearly shown that Edwards was in no sense Mr. Allen's agent, and he discussed fully the principles of the electoral law on this branch of the subject; secondly, he contended that even if Edwards were -Mr. Allen's agent no corrupt acts had been proved, and thab on this branch of the case the petitioner had absolutely failed. The more serious charge of the payment of £5 10s to a voter named Cock had been absolutely disproved. Two other charges had been abandoned, and the only two remaining were the payments of £1 to Cornes and Maher, and the offer of travelling expenses to Thomas Maher. These it had been clearly shown were in connection with bet 3 made by Edwards, one of which the evidence showed was with Colonel Eraser himself, and the others with members of Eraser's committee. He analysed the evidence and submitted that on these points the Court must decide in favour of Allen. The defect in the appointment of the scrutineers was an irregularity only, and came within the principles of the Wakanui and Akaroa cases. He submitted that nothing had been shown which would cast any personal reflection on the character of either Mr. Allen or his agent, Mr. Buttle, nor had any evidence been given of the existence of corrupt practices in the electorate. He reserved nil argument on Hammond's appointment until Hammond's evidence was taken. j Mi - . Hesketh replied, and dealt first with the allegation of bribery by Edwards at Paeroa. He said there was no denial by the respondent of the fact of payment to Maher, Cornes, and O'Hara, and thab the only questions that remained were whether Edwards was authorised to make the payments, and whether the payments were corruptly made. Dealing with the question of Edwards' agency, he submitted that in election petitions the ordinary rules of law are considerably relaxed and extended (Rogers on Elections, p. 409), and that although Edwards was nob expressly appointed agent, yet ho was practically a member of the committee and his actions were recognised and adopted. He quoted numerous authorities on the point. He then dealt with the question of nomination, and submitted that a telegram consenting to the nomination can only be sent along lines within the colony, and that a cablegram received from any place outside cannot be said to be an ordinarj" telegram within the meaningof the Regulation of Elections Act. He submitted, further, that the consent must bo in writing, signed by the candidate, and that the cases quoted by Mr. Cooper', under the statute of frauds, have no application. With regard to Mr. Cooper's contention that it was now too late to object to the nomination, as section 8 of the Regulations of Elections Act required all such objections to be made within five days, Mr. Hesketh submitted that the consent formed no pare of the nomination paper. With regard to the scrutineers Mr. Hesketh distinguished the present case from the Wakanui case quoted by Mr. Cooper. In that case i. scrutineer had been properly appointed but was not present aijthe counting of the rolls, but in this case a scrutineer was never properly appointed as required by the statute. Mr. Hesketh said he had just received a telegram that Mr. Hammond would arrive by the train, and requested that he might be examined immediately on his arrival. Mr. Cooper said it was rather unfortunate that Colonel Eraser had just gone to escort Mr. Hammond up from the train. Mr. Hesketh suggested that Mr. Buttle might also go down, but Mr. Buttle' declined. i

In the meantime the witness arrived. He objected to taks an oath, and made an affirmation. In reply to Mr. Hesketh, he said he lived in Hamilton, and , was an accountant, He had intended to come on horseback, but was unable to find his horse. He acted as clerk in the recent election at several pollinglaces, Cambridge, Oxford, and Lichfield, 'e acted as clerk, collated the rolls, and did the correspondence, and acted generally in Mr. Allan's interest. He made a list of voters of the districts under his charge, which be gave to the committee, who no doubt did their best for Mr. Allen. Witness saw a great many of the electors on the list, and knew a great many of them, and spoke to them urging the election of Mr. Allen. He had cards of introduction stating that Mr. W. S. Allen was a candidate. On the day of the poll he was in Cambridge. He could; nob say what he said, but its effect, was to ask those he spoke to to act on Mr. Allen's commietee, and he met with a great deal of success. They had a very strong committee in Cambridge. Witness could rdb say who appointed the committer They were appointed by Mr. Buttle, Ind he simply acted as secretary. Oi the polling day, he had the names of every voter who could vote in Cambridge, and he ticked them off as they voted, and then told the committee to look up those who had not voted. He did nob himself go into the polling-room. All the Cambridge i committee were voters, * and they were |he leading men in Cambridge. Witness onlr acted as secretary, and worked for Mr. Allen for three weeks and two days. I Prior to the election he saw nearly every elector except those of Matamata. None of the committee to his knowledge canvassed the electors, but he had no doubt they did, as it was their duty to do so. Witness was appointed by Mr. Buttle at £(: a week and expenses, and he travelled through the district assisting Mr. Allen's election, and did the clerical work and saw the electors. True, the position was a : peculiar one. Mr. Allen was away, and some one had to see them on his behalf, and he did so. Mr. Battle paid him £12 by cheque and orders. The cheque, ho thought, was for £9, drawn on the Bank of New Zealand, Hamilton. Witness incurred some expenses in Cambridge, and gave orders on Mr. Buttle for £7, £3 lGs 6d, and 16s; but that did not come from Mr. Allen. They were taken out of his salary. It was before he gob the cheque that he gave the orders. He cashed the cheque for the £9. He had furnished a detailed account to Mr. Buttle, amounting in all to £27. Witness continued at his work during the three weeks, and after the election Mr. Buttle considered witness had not done his duty, but he told him the result, showed lie had, for they got nearly half the majority in the four polling places. Witness' appointment to act for Mr. Alien was produced, and he said he had done his best in Mr. Allen's interest, but he had never canvassed a man for a vote. He set on foot the organisation for three polling places. When Mr. Buttle appointed him he asked witness whether he could legally appoint him, and witness said ho could under the first section of the Corrupt Practices Act, and witness was accordingly engaged to do the clerical work. He got no instructions other than to do the best he could for Mr. Allen.

By Mr. Cooper: Witness was to place himself at the disposal of the Cambridge committee, and he acted as clerk. Other informal committees were formed at Oxford and Litchfield. He did not induce any elector to give bis vote to Mr. Allen directly, and did no canvassing, and he brought no voters up to the poll. There were about 300 voters in the district he was connected with. He had at previous elections acted in the same capacity. Ho was not an elector in the Te Aroha district. _ . This closed the evidence. The Court adjourned at half-past five until ten o'clock next morning, when argument on Hammond's evidence will be heard.