RANGITIKEI ELECTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21162, 20 April 1932, Page 11

RANGITIKEI ELECTION.

MR. J. T. HOGAN'S PETITION. SOME CHARGES WITHDRAWN. THE ALLEGATIONS OF BRIBERY. COMMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] MARTON, Tuesday. The hearing of the petition of James Thomas Hogan, Independent candidate for the Rangitikei seat at the last general election, who sought to upset the return of Alexander (Coalition) as member for the electorate, was continued at Marton to-day before the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, and Mr. Justice Reed. The proceedings lost much public interest when charges of bribery and corruption were withdrawn. Counsel for petitioner said that in fairness to respondent and himself certain of the charges relating to bribery had been withdrawn. We have had only three weeks in which to prepare the case," he said, "and we find on further investigation that we have no option but to advise our client to withdraw these charges " Enginedriver's Reinstatement. Counsel then proceeded with an allegation that respondent, shortly prior to the date of the election, in order to uiduce John Francis Fyfe, of Marton, enginedriver, to vote or refrain from voftng, directly or indirectly by himself or by some other person on his behalf, procured that Fyfe be reinstated by • the Railway Department, having previously been compulsorily retired from the department. Counsel said no one regretted more than he that such a serious charge had to be made, but it was in the interests of Fyfe that the facts should be brought out in Court as the question had been discussed freely in the electorate. It was difficult to secure the necessary evidence. Counsel said that Fyfe was compulsorily retired with several others. A number were later reinstated, but Fyfe was not one. It was nofc until Mr. Stuart took a hand in the matter that Fyfe was reinstated. Counsel also pointed out that Fyfe was at one time a prominent man in Labour circles and it is significant that he suddenly became a strong supporter of Mr. Stuart at the election.

The Chief Justice: That does not concern us. Political views have nothing to do with it. You must Bhow evidence of corrupt practice. It is a serious charge and we must have something more than that. A Letter of Introduction. James Fisher, who was secretary of the Marton branch ef the Labour Party, was then called. Counsel said he desired to show that Fyfe turned a complete political somersault. The Chief Justice: Oh, that is nothing. Plenty of people do that. They are entitled to. Fyfe outlined particulars of his retirement compulsorily from the service and efforts to be reinstated. He said he was anxious to get an interview with the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, and eventually decided to ask Mr. Stuart for a letter of introduction to the Minister. Mr. Stuart suggested that as Mr. Hogan was the member for the district, he should be approached, but witness said he could not get on to Mr. Hogan. Mr. Stuart then agreed to provide a letter of introduction. This was in September. Witness detailed a visit to Wellington and his interview with Mr. Coates. However,, he received a reply that he could not be Eventually the then general manager, Mr. H. H. Sterling, gave him an interview. Mr. Sterling was favourably impressed and reinstatement followed.

Counsel: Did Mr. Stuart make you any offer ?—None whatever and never took any further hand in the matter. Counsel Withdraws Charge.

Counsel: You are a Labourite ? —I have certain sympathy with the Labour Party. Counsel: At Mr. Stuart's political meeting at the Junction you seconded a motion and spoke eulogistically of the candidate? —Yes. Because I considered him the most suitable man to represent us in Parliament. After a short discussion on the relevancy of certain evidence, counsel for petitioner said he seemed to have no option but to withdraw the charge.

Later in the day counsel for Mr. Stuart commented on the withdrawal of the bribery charges. He said they had been broadcast over the Dominion and must be damaging to his client. He trusted that in the judgment the Bench would comment on the matter.

Tile Chief Justice said: "So far as any allegations of corrupt practice are concerned they have completely failed, in fact, have been withdrawn. There i# nothing before the Court of corrupt practice whatsoever. Mr. Stuart can set his mind at rest on that point." The remainder of the petitioner s case was the hearing of Arthur Way, of Marton, and F. M. Marlow, of Taihape, who, it was alleged, exercised votes while paid agents of Mr. Stuart. Both, stated they had been honorary secretaries without remuneration. Way had been a Reform secretary and had been paid, but after Julv last had received nothing. Since the Coalition the Reform organisation had been out of existence. Marlow admitted receiving £5 as a Christmas box from Mr. Stuart after the election. Case for Defence Opened. Both counsel quoted several authorities in regard to this section of the petition for the consideration of the Bench. It was also alleged that certain agents of Mr. Stuart were at polling booths at Mart on and Marton Junction and. not being authorised scrutineers, interfered with voters. Evidence was called of delay caused, but _no witness was deprived of a vote. These agents were not in the booths, but within the building. . This concluded tho case for the petitioner and the defence opened with th® hearing of evidence of witnesses who had voted In Rangitikei, but who had been absent from the district longer than the prescribed time. Thirteen votes were thus involved and further evidence will be called to-morrow. The deputy-returning officer at the Murimotu booth, which, it was alleged, closed at 6 p.m. instead of 7 p.m., admitted that was so, but said he was in the booth until about seven o'clock and only one person was refused a vote. When witness left no one was in sight. The hearing - of evidence will be coneluded to-morrow.