STRATFORD PETITION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10542, 19 March 1920, Page 5

STRATFORD PETITION

ELECTION DECLARED VOID NO DISABILITY imposed on MR MASTERS. • PER PRESS ASSOCIATION. STRATFORD, March 18. The Election Court gave its decision this afternoon. The decision sets out that the petition was against the re turn of Robert Masters for the Stratford seat at the last general election, when, plasters was declared duly elected by a majority of til votes. Iho petition, firstly, alleged that at the King's cinema, on December lorn, Masters was guilty of corrupt practice in giving those present valuable consideration in the shape of nuisici and pictures, such being paid for by Masters, and supplied in order to induce electors to vote. It was also alleged that the supply of music at the meeting in the Town Hall on Octooef 80th was a corrupt The alternative charge was that tne offence of bribery was committed on these occasions. ' A further charge was that the occasions constituted illegal practices. The petition also _ alleged thathe payment of the musicians on October 30th was an illegal practice. Petitiouers asked that there be struck oft the poll the names of a large number of persons who voted for Masters, hut who were not entitled to register aa voters or to vote. This latter charge and the others were abandoned, after ft largo amount of evidence had been taken. The petition also asked that the persons . nresent at the King’s cinema should bo struck off the roll as being persons who had been bribed. There was little dispute as to what happened on the two occasions. Section 25 of the Legislature Act defined bribery. NO BRIBERY. “It cannot,’’ said Their Honourn, “looking only at the facts here proved, be said that what was done constituted the offence of bribery within the meaning of section 215, nor can it be said that it constituted the _ offence of treating as defined by section 216, nor the offence of undue influence aa defined in section 217. The words used, however, in section 224: ‘Any person who commits any corrupt or' illegal practice, is liable, etc.,’ and it was urged that it was a corrupt practice, because section 12 of the Legislature Act thus defines corrupt_ practices: ‘Corrupt practices mean bribery, treating, undue influence, or personation, as defined by this Act, or as recognised by the common law of Parliament, and includes any act declared by this Act to be a corrupt practice.’ This seeks to bring in what is termed the common law of Parliament. Our Crimes Act has abolished common law of crimes so far as indictment for crimes is concerned, and it is very difficult to discover where the common law of Parliament i« to be found. “The British Parliament dealt with petitions through the agency of 'Parliamentary committees for a long series of years. Election courts were established in 186 S, upon a plan which was fol'nwed in this country years later. Since the institution of these court* more regular reports of those cases hpve anneared. Counsel was asked if he could cite any precedent from the decisions given in Parliament or election courts where something similar to whnt has happened here was Pronounced to he a corrupt practice, but he was unahle to do so: AN ILLEGAL PRACTICE.

“In the opinion of the court there is no proof of corrupt practice in either act. When Fox was engaged to play at the October 30th meeting no payment was made or promised, and the arrangement did not colne within the toAns of section 319. On the evidence presented,, the court might have some difficulty in holding that this transaction amounted to an illegal practice. As to December 16th. the directors of the .Cinema Theatre Company passed a resolution agreeing to rent the hall to Masters with the use of music and pictures. The hall was used by Masters, and the music and pictures used before ho 'began his speech. The court is forced to tho conclusion that Masters used pictures and music to procure,his election. The fifth schedule of tho Act,, as amended, does not authorise any expenditure for such ft purpose. This expense, 'though incurred in connection with a public meeting, and not otherwise, was not the necessary expense of holding a meeting, nor was it an expense in respect 1 of miscellaneous matters, and it is not so returned in tho candidate’s return of expenses. *• THE RENTAL OF THE HALL. “It was contended,’’ the judgment goes on, “that as £lO was the rental of the hall, whether pictures and music (were used or not, the cost of pictures and music ought not to be considered as included within that sum. There are, it appears to ns, two answers to this contention. First, Masters asked for the option of the use of pictures and music and got it included in a resolution of the Cinema. Company. It became, therefore, part of the bargain he mad© with tho company, and tho court cannot now sever it. He obtained this concession hy payment. Secondly,. he was not hound to use music and pictures. He could have held the meeting without. He, however, used pictures and music, for which he had 'bargained and paid, and we must assume that he did so because lie thought it might promote or help to procure his election. This becomes, therefore, an unauthorised payment under section 22, and is an illegal practice.’’ Tho judgment pointed out that in the Southampton case the payment of two shillings was held to Ibo an illegal practice. The judge in that case granted* relief, but “with great reluctance ‘and not wishing this to bo a precedent for any other case whatever. *’ That was an offence which the English court could con,done and did condone, but in the present case, oven if the court thought the election was not affected, it had no power to condone the breach of statute.

The court mus't, therefore, determine that the election of -Masters was void. The court h"d to consider what disability should bo imposed on Masters and had decided that no disability bo imposed. “We are of the opinion,’ l says the judgment, “that bo was guilty of no corrupt practice, and the illegal practice was done openly, without any idea that ho was viofating the law.” Costs would be divided according to

the measure of success obtained F>y the respective parties at the hearing. Mr A. M. Myers rrn* for petitioners, and Sir John Findlay for respondent.