ELECTION PETITIONS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10722, 10 February 1897, Page 3

ELECTION PETITIONS.

THE WELLINGTON SUBURBS SEAT. (Pcs VxnT_ Pkess Association.; ' t ' Wellington, February 9. The hearing of the election petition wa continued this forenoon; *B. J. Shanden, further questioned, said h had never spent a day afc canvassing. He sat Mulvaney after'the'elecliidn, and advised bin not to commit perjury in the witness box. -Hi did not mean this as a threat. He would eal jomething detrimental to Mulvaney if the latto" hurt Mr Wilford in his evidence. Mulvane; told wituess that he had been a supporter of M Hislop. Mr Chapman then called Mr Wilford. M Skerretb objected on fche ground that he wa respondent to the petition, bub was overrule! by the bench. Thomas M,: Wilford was closely questiones About the letter to Mulvaney, bufe denied am knowledge of tbe man or his politicn, sayin; that it was done' simply as ah aict of kindness He was afterwards warned nofc to trust Mul rans^. At this stage th* witness's letter to thi Premier was read. In ifc Mulvaney wa mentioned as a supporter of witness, aud a: having supported Dr Newman at the pre rious election. Asked how he reconcile! the letter with his evidence, Wilford s&ii thafc something must have been saic about the election afc the interview but he did not recollect; the fact. H was told the man was ont of work and hac 12 children, and had lost a hand, and whei ivitneis was asked to give him a letter to th< Premier he thought he was doing what anyoni sise would have done under the circumstances At tlw interview nothing whatever was saic about; politics, but he presumed that Mulvancj was a Liberal or he would nofc have coaie ti witness. Standen did nofc tell him Mulvaney'i politics. Two or three days afterwards Mul viney Came to see bim, and witness told him fci clear but ot he would kirk bitn out This wai because he had been told, iv fche interval thai the man was a scoundrel. He had nofc spoker to Mr Seddon on th« subject. The letter pro duced looked like the letter he wrote for Mill vaney. He could not remembsr what he wrote It was in his writing. Mr Chapman :;Ia that the letter you gave t( lAulvaney ? Witness: I cannot say, .Mr Justice Conolly : Surely. Witness : Well, ifc is on court paper and ii aiy writing. . The Chief Justice: Have you written so manj Quit you do not remember. Witness laid fche letter taunt be his. Ths fetter was as follows :—" Wellington, Octobei 25,1896.-*-D«ar Mp Seddon,->Let ma introduci by this Mr Joseph Mnlv&ney, who is a.supportei of myself 'in Karori, and,who did a great dea for Dr Newman on the last ocoasion Mr Mul vaney has considerable influence in Karori ant has to ask for assistance from you, such as i night-watchman's billfit «r anything else thai is suitable. Will you do, what you can foi him ?—Tours truly, T. M, Wilfoed." Examination continued t. Witness still ad hered to the statemept he had made. Ifc lonkec to him nowjhat there was some truth in Stan len's statement thafc Mulvaney had said a lot that they could nofc understand. Mr Chapman • I .understand from you tha* tLa.'.? r<ft. ot the whole conversation was quitt apart i« tri fl-otions? Witness :. Qmfc9 so. .That is still my impression. ~ _Mr Chapman: But do you think this is consistentiWith the efcatsmeatin the.letter. Head ing between the lines, whafc did it mean P. Supposing ycur opponent had written this letter, what would yob think? - Witness: I Bhonld-look at in the manner oi a figure o£ speech. .It I was asking you. for a subscription I should nrqbably begin ifc with " Knowing. yonr benevolent and., kind. disposition," though there might be nothing in it. Mr Chapman: Is,that all? What is the object of ifc then"? '_ _.' - _l Witness : To influence the Eremier's mind. _. -Mr Chapman - Is not the inference to be drawn -this; .that if Mulvaney got a billet h{ wonld use his inflrfeuca iv your favour ? 'Witdeis said the inference to he drawn would he drawn byjthe. courb. He did nofc recollect wherihe first-lealrned tbat the letter ?a^ not presented to tbe Prtnaier. Since the petition he had seen Mr Seddon about Mulraney, bnt not before;, HSiad "ue?ei? warned the Premier a&mt' MulvAnev,. fcdt. iffcsr the petition was lodged, he'jtt^d.fhe premier that the matter'had T<e6n arranged by Mr ftulop'a people. ' ' Sirei Bjlen.Hall, examined by Mr Chapman, said she went with Mulvaney to Government Bnildings.*.- They* cbald hot' see the Premiei after waitto^~abodfc half an'hohr. 1 Witness had jpen Mnlvknfey before he bWughfc Ihe letter. Mulyaney told herTt was best to"work for the Conservatives "'* becausa_they had more money, and Tpm Wilfordjsad none.'^ She advised him to- kegp out .of politics if he was only after moneyi .Four days bsfore the election Mulvaney told witness ho had *• more money in his pocket thah* he should ever, get out of Tom Wilford." * Mulvaney siid, to' her" "Ifc's HlsWp'a." -J»?9Ph> Mulvaney, carter, Karon' road, examined by. Mr .Monson, said he was a Wellington Suburbs elector. He supported Dr Isewmanin 1893 - He remembered a cohversation in October with Staaden, and .later one in ..'B 8 4t r6et ' n Stauien started election talk. 'Witness told Standan if he could get a Government billet he would not mind supportmg the.Governfiiaiit; Standfen said, "Come alobg with me." They went to Mr Wilford't *£'•", witne&s remaining outside;: and Mi J? oem^ out, thßy went; on to the court, will*J; tb«y found him. Witness told Mi Wilford ■:.&.. ths la»t ; eleefcioa he was a- Bnpporter of s)r-Ne«man anddid hisbest to upsef him,; MrWilfblla iaß hei*k*;-Mane of "that, bntEdxMd tsSeaJicking..; Hifc»fiß» told Mi Wilford of hisj accident, Rnd.sajd'sdme of Mi .: Wilford's. Buppbifcers'-hM »represente'«( ?-to him ,: that He could get.* Government billet. Mi Wilford began his, and told witnesa he wonld ptffc ~Kini' down"* as' "a^"'supporter. Wjteess .hesitated, but':Mr \ .Wilford said hemnst,'.ot it%ovild be ho; good; 'Witness told Mir ' he-had workea for Mr Hisloj during:, the election campaign. Mi Wilford-TOggeited his writing to' Mr Hislop. Witness explained to Mr Wilford his bnsiiiesi relationii with; MiesßrS -Hislcp. and Brandon, and said he'shouldgo jinS see"hilin anyway. When Mr Wilford'give witness the" letter fie told hiua totakeittbthe-Premior's dfßce, and tell then IKV-_["W^W .Wilrdrd;: when he woilld bi admittwar.'5 He-fcsuia'n;ofc*^B'e the Premier, and «• 3&r.oc Wo later Ttifciiegs met. Mr Wilford, whe told him-he had' made it all rijiht with th« Premier, ,who would write to him. He saw Mi M^A'a latfer in the same aiy,' and asked Dim if hef-KhfeW- the' cdhtfekts of "the' letter the Premier';was fco-send. Mr: Wilferd said, at appointment as night watchman. Witness thankedMr'Wilf&rd, and iaid ho would go tc Mif Hislop and:, tell him he had done with him, He had a -lively balf-hobr- "with Mr Hislop. He waited for,a fortnight, but did not receive s letter from the.PUeih'icf.""l^e saw Mr Wilforc dnilrig tte." f6*lSn%H^'itfd-t^W him he had hoi received'ibetter. - Mr Wilfojrd-said there wai plenty.ofrhme^^Bfe told Mi- Wilford that Mi Hislop'had V,g»ien him Sis." At the end ol thefottnigß? he \»"rot'a'"tb the Premier, an^ receiredan answer two or three days after thi electlob; , Before the election tie' told Mr Wilford's agents (MrsHail-and Thdmas Hall) thai if the letter was not; forthcoming with! tb( appoihtmehfc he Would' turti on them and-Mi Wilford. -At the'eleventh hohr—two dayi before.the election—he told Mrs Hail he *as nofgomg to snpporfc Mr Wilford any longer Theb he «aw;..Mr Hislup ana offered hitr support,- fchfc' he declined it. Two or tbrei weeks'before-the .elfectibn'Witness was in ths office of Mf ThqnSas, in Molesworfch Street, anc read".;tne letter,'..' saying it vras wasfce paper Wituess did nofc lead Mr Wilford to suppose hi could notread. ""' *" ~"'■.-'" -'-. By/Mr Skferiefcfc:* He "came to the- W?el lington district about 1888. He resfdec previouily at- . Waimafce South, and bac businens relations with Mr Hislop Whih - thdre;--He-^was; committed at Timaca foi obtaining, goods by false pretences, Mr Hisloj defebeing Lhim. -He had business- "relation Wlt&Mif .Hfolopjfa one stAail case after comin< to WellinKton: ■He m«fc with his accident, anc bad accident insurance policies. He was 15 wef.ksm.ther hospital. Mr Hislop bad chargf of bis claim about September last. MrHisloi lent witness £40 on the 4th October [Withes/ here produced in Court Mr Hislop's account which,Mr Skerrett; examined" and found fc'o'Ki ■ a .tajik* 21st October.] Two accident Coin . p»nies <j«erf,d to compromise iv lump sums o £52 4hd£32.^*|lecfci»elj','but witness fefosec the" S«ttlehi6titV'filid'"»»li e d"Mr Hislop fc< advance' him £40 On the security of tb< polieie.,-which .was done. Witness had seei Mr Hislop a; few day« before seeing Mr Wilforc tne first time, and hadalab introduced Mr Hisloj lw various: electors in Koriiti road at the lattcr'i n^jnesfejHe". waj-.fieqaehtfjr in Mr Hislop's offici at this time. He; had noth»d k "cbnvswatioi with any' per«on besides Mr Wilford relativ, W the letter of iutroductioii to the Premier geeiDg tbat Mr Hislog wis to Btand for thi Suburbs he-went to see the' Halls. Mrs Hal idrised him tt) hang on and he'might do bette: for hliMffelf." Mi-Wilford was payinghis ca n /a?sers £2 2s a-week, and ha, should al*/ endeavour to get a Government billet vow tha his" hand was--'disabled.-' She eaia she woiilc see Mr Wilford about it. He told her subse quently. tfiat he was going to fetch up M Hislop" She' e*id she'wouic! hot "bein " if hi came, and so ifc out [AVitofess was her/ re-examined as to his interview with Mr Wil ford afc the court.] He stated that be told M Wilford that Mr Hinlop was acting for him ii the aqcideat case, and asked Mr Wilford, if hi was going to work for him, whe'hi-r it wouii ■ not be the thing to take the acciden case from'Mr Hialbp. Mr Wilford atißwerec in the negative, saying it had nothing to di with the "ele'ctiiin."/ AYitness saw Gapes at th/ latter'e houpfe re tri^ e'ectibu, and fcojd him tha Mr Hislop.. Was ,an. old ..friend of his, but uo that Mr Hislop had, lent him money tc p»j vi

Thomas. - He might have,gone back to Gapea thab night and offered the use of one room as a committee room for Sir Wilford. Afc a date before tha election—tho date was nofc recollected—Mr HUlop Bent for him to his office. tte_ often went there in conneotion with the accident business. Mr Hinlop showed him an , envelope, saying thp l-3tt»r was there". On the day be wrote tho Premier ha met Mr Andrew Collins and a^ked for au introduction to the c Premier. Mr Collins told him to write. He * Sr„. not 8&y to Geor Se Durrell " You may get n Wilford in, but Hislop and I have got him c fixed, and Hislop has ,i letter which will put y bun away." He did not »sk Riohard Greeks r whether he could trust bim. He did nofc say to y Greeks, " Can I fcru*fc you. Dick ? Mind, what r I say to you is under my foot " He did nofc , ask Greeks who were Mc Wilford'tf paid canr vassers. On the election day Mr Hislop did g not have the use of or pay him for a committee d room. WitneßS had one Dottle of whisky ia his house and 12 bott es of beer, one bottle of d brandy, no gin, and no schnapps. He got the f liquor from Mugionicv's He paid lor tha s liquor himself l-fc, orosred it on the daj of . ihe election. Ho only asked in three people. - Mr Wilford's supportau took charge of fche 8 house. He wa* not m oha'rge of ths liquor, s He remembered Mr Hislop driving up thafc d»y s He swore he djdn't ask Mr Hislop to come aud - have a drink. He rlidn'fc hear Gapes ask Mr i Hislop *hafc he meant by allowing Mulvaney to I dispense free drinks. Mr Hi*lop knew all about i the billet from the Moadar, *hen Mr Wilford , told htra to e'ear out of his ofli.-e. c To Mr Chapman :Mr Hislop pressed him ver» i hard, and asked questions as to his change of i sides. He told him tha letter was never to bo c } used again on the honour bl a gentleman. As far c as he was aware, Mr Hislop kept his promUf. . He did not accuse Mr Hislop of breach of confii j deuce Mr Hislop had since had permission to j | use the le'.ter Hib removing to town bad nolho ' ing to do wirh the election. All the liquor on s i the election day waß not eounumed. The con- * S? m£ r. s were lf" ade"o£ Mc Wilford's committee. 0 j Mr Hislop knew nothing about the liquor being a j in thehouse, fc * The inquiry was adjourned until to-morrow. j'j THH WELLINGTON CITY PBHTJON. _ j (From Our Own CoSrespondbst.) \ The petition m ths "ftbliingtou ftity election D case, which is yefc to bo hewd has foi hh object j tbe ungating of Mr Fisli-r, whos.' majority ovnt. Mr A H Atkintou «vbs 28 The peti.i n'r j objecfcn to 22 votes as dt üblo votbs. 'I'hirt) -niu,» j . votes are objected to on the ground of '"personation" Theu, 14 votes are objected to on ? the score o> " treating " on the day betore fie j election at the skating riuk The social given by 3 j the Women's Social aud Political League \i put r ' down as treating, aod therefore a corrupt 3 i practice. The " Self-Help Society," othertrme P • known as tho *' Mofchhrs'," it! aUo charged with 1 ! treating. * The votes objected to ou these . . grounds amount to aboub 300. in all. The votes J of a number of botelkef ocrs aro objected to on 5, account of their hiriug vehicles for the purposes, t of Mr Fisher's election. Another allegation is r that certain persons were refused ballot papers. The respondent (Mr Fisher) objects to 10 votes . S'ven to Mr Atkinson on the ground of I " personation," to 26 voles given on tha ground . of the hiring qf conveyances, and sgverat votes : are objected to as not b^mg stamped' with the official mark. s The wairarapa sbat.- petition DISALLOWED. v .- j Weuwoton, Febrnary 9. Judgment was given by the Chief Justice and ' j Mr Justice Conolly Ihu morning on the motion to remove the petition against' Mr W. C. Buohaban from the record ' > > I -The Chief Justice said his opinion wa? thafc j tn» declaration could not be subsequent to the return, and consequently the' petition was nofc j presented in time, He was inclined t6 think J-; that tbe intention of the act was that ■ the declaration 'Was io be by advertiss- | j ment, and also thafc an authorised advertiSe- ' I ment of the number of vote 3 would have I kmouafcod a> such a declaration. ' iI, Mr Juatico Conolly ssid the returning II bfficec's proceedings were exceedingly irregular, ' j and he clearly did nofc dpdewfcand the act uudi r i which he was working. As to the date of the hdvertisemant, neither the Uth "ior the 12fch ' Docpmber would help the poticioaer. If the ' court had ruled thafc the former was the dote ' the petition was a day toll late, and if the 12th ; , was the dafce tbo notice would havd'beeh too j late, being beyond tbe ltgal limit ot seven days j j prescribed by the aofc Bqtfa judges held that th? return of the writ j to the clerk of polls overruled any other ' f declaration-in this particular cane, "und Con- | i eeqaentl? the petition w»8 not in iirae. | i In arguing against co^ts being allowed, Mr Skferrett said the fault was etetirel? the refcurn- - ing officer's, aud ifc would be unfair to saddle 1 the petitioner with the costs. The Bench asked what »pre the future infcen- \ ! tions about the petition, and "'' Mr Skerrett said he vsould submit to a j dismissal. ' - 1 j Costs were disallowed.