DEMOCRAT PARTY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22999, 30 September 1936, Page 7

DEMOCRAT PARTY

CLAIM BY ORGANISER CASE FOR THE DEFENCE EVIDENCE BY GOODFELLOW (Per United Press Association) AUCKLAND, Sept. 29. The adjourned hearing of the claim by Har~ Charles Baulf against the officials of the former Democrat Party was resumed in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr Wyvern Wilson, when the evidence for the plaintiff was continued. Mrs Susan Mabel Milne, a member of the committee, said that after a committee meeting in August or September Baulf’s account was discussed, and Donald and Denny raised the subject. Donald said: “That will have to be paid, but Harry (meaning Baulf) will have to wait.” After a later meeting Denny submitted accounts to Donald, asking: “ What about Harry? Donald said: “I will see that they are paid.” Since the case commenced Donald had said to her in conversation: “ I am prepared to admit that what Harry said ts right.” Opening the case for the defence Mr North, representing Goodfellow, said the principal question was whether the plaintiff looked to the organisation or whether he was entitled to look beyond the organisation to individual members. Counsel outlined the history of the formation of the party. He said that after the break occurred with Goodfellow in January, 1935, as the letters between them showed, Davy began to “ flirt ” with Donald, who was then coming to the fore. An interesting fact that emerged from the accounts was that Donald got back the £ 1500 that he guaranteed to the party funds, having received two cheques for over £7OO each.

“A peculiar thing,” Mr North said, “is that Baulf has been paid all that was owing to him. His relatives, of whom Donald is one, say that this money is a loan, so whether this is really an action by Baulf or his relatives who wish to reimburse themselves cannot be ascertained. The central executive has not been sued.” William Goodfellow, company director, said he had never exercised the right te appoint an executive, It was originally intended that the party should consist of 14 or 15 prospective members of Parliament which he should nominate Theparty was to foster reciprocal trade and outside of that he had no general interest in politics and did not intend to stand himself He eventually agreed to the constitution of the party. , , “I never at any period intended to put in more than about £1000,” stated witness. “It is untrue to say that I was to put in £SOOO as a subscription to the party fund of £15,000.” There was no understanding, witness added, that any money he put into the party fund was a gift. Witness said that at’ one of the first meetings of the party Davy mentioned that he would like to engage Baulf as local organiser. Baulf came to see witness and asked witness if the party was financial, as he had had some unhappy experiences of political parties. Witness said that he paid Baulf’s salary for two months and kept the party going for six months. In November witness undertook to raise £IOO a month for four ‘months prior to instituting a public campaign for the fund in March. Up to then he understood that the plaintiff had been paid. The funds were sufficient to pay him. Up to the date of witness’s resignation witness had paid £1516 into the party, including money collected from friends. In addition he made loans to Davy which had been repaid. Witness had not been repaid any of the £ 1516. Witness said J. B. M'Kihney, country organiser, received £6 a week. Witness paid several cheques to M'Kinney. Witness said he did not attend any meetings of the Auckland executive after March, and was not present at any meetings which J. B. Donald attended. Witness said he knew nothing of the £3OOO fund controlled by T. C. A. Hislop and Davy. Witness said that he would consider such a fund most improper. In June witness suggested to Donald that he should call up his guarantees so that the party could be put back on a sound basis. Witness said he would have agreed to pay a car ■ allowance of 6d a mile. He considered 4d a mile sufficient. In answer to Mr Dickson witness said he would accept no responsibility in this case even for moneys claimed before his resignation. He admitted being a . member of the executive and paying Davy’s salary up to August, 1935. “I attended meetings up to then to try to salvage the party.” stated witness. It had gone off the rails. Reciprocal trade as a policy, which was the only thing I was interested in, had been relegated to the background. The party’s finances had also gone off the rails. There was not much money owing, but I objected to the collecting of money from people whose political feelings were opposed to the iriginal policy of the party.” At no time, witness said, had he told Baulf he would not be responsible for his wayes, but Baulf was at a meeting in March when witness said he would find no more money for the party. Up to August, however, witness continued to pay Davy’s salary, having promised to do so. Witness said that at the last meeting of the central executive in Wellington he had made a final attempt to regain control of the party by gaining control of the finances. “ If I could control the finances I could dictate the policy.” said Goodfellow. “ That is politics, is it? ” asked Mr Wilson.

“Unfortunately, yes, sir,” witness renlied. Witness said he understood that Baulf’s v/ages were to be £4 That was what Davy had told him. He would repudiate any further claim for wages because he did not know of any arrangement othr" than that the plaintiff should be paid £4 a w’eek and be engaged by the month Prior to 1034 witness had subscribed to and sunported the Reform Party He stated in answer to Mr Butler that he had helped to form the Democrat Party nurely to advocate reciorocal trade Witness agreed that the Government had m 1933 cancelled a contract for the supply of coal to the railways in which the New Zealand Co-operative Dairv Company was concerned On the production b> Mr Butler of a letter of which Goodfellow admitted authorship Mr North raised on objection on the grounds that

it was irrelevant. “ Many things could have been said about the inner workings of this business that were better left unsaid,” remarked Mr North. The magistrate ruled the letter out of order. With regard to wages, Mr Goodfellow told Mr Butler that probably the wages agreed to be paid to Baulf were £4 a week, and it was subsequently increased to £6. After the organisation was formed he took it that the Dominion Executive was responsible for the payment of Baulf’s wages and other matters. After his resignation he said he washed his hands of the whole campaign. Witness said he did not continue to make payments after March except for past commitments. To Mr North, Goodfellow said that in July, 1935, he had tried to have Davy removed irom the Central Executive, but the meeting, he said, would not have passed any motion th n t he wished. Plaintiff, said Mr Brown, was rather like a dog at a football match, he did not know who was his master.

The magistrate: Well, no one seems to be whistling for him. Mr Brown submitted that the plaintiff was. engaged by Davy and Davy alone, and it was for the court to decide whether the engagement was an behalf of that nebulous body, the Democrat Party. At a time when his client (J. B. Donald) was not a member of the party, counsel said, Baulf was employed by Davy. The magistrate said that while Elaintiff took his instructions from >avy that did not necessarily make Davy the principal. Questioned by Mr Brown, Donald said he did not enter into any personal arrangement with the plaintiff to pay his wages. He did not give his personal guarantee to pay moneys owing. He had brought the matter up with Davy in Wellington, and Davy had replied that if the party “ went ” the plaintiff would be paid, and if the party did not the plaintiff would not be paid. Mr Dickson interposed that all this was new to his client (Baulf). The witness Donald said he had spoken to Mrs Milne, because he understood from Baulf’s evidence that he did not hold him personally liable. He had never signed any application to join tl party. "Baulf said I received payment for furniture in the rooms in the British Chambers and that I seized the furniture. I want to deny that,’ said witness. “The rooms were let without payment except for 10s a week for the lift. I had certain furniture in the room and said they could have it if they liked to pay me £3O. I have not paid nor have I received the 10s a week. The rooms are the same at present as when they were left. I thought it was best in view of the trouble that the rooms should be left as they were, so I changed the lock. I have made several inquiries about the books from Baulf and Denny, the treasurer, but they said they did not know where they were. I am not urging on this action Witness detailed his financial transactions with Baulf. He said that Baulf came to him last December in a very perturbed state and said Davy had promised to send him £2l. As he needed the money to pay his wages witness gave him his own cheque for £2l on the understanding 'that it was to be repaid immediately Davy’s cheque arrived. “In April Baulf said he washing to lose his house and furniture,” said witness. “ I felt sorry for him, but said that any money I lent him must be on a business footing. I paid all the debts he had outstanding. I said he might collect some money from the Democrat Party and he gave me an irrevocable order for this money. Baulf said in evidence that I pleaded with him not to add me to the action. I want to deny that. He is/hot my “ You look more' like his uncle,' said the magistrate. “ Later I asked him if it was fair to sue me in view of all I had done for him,” witness continued. I want to clear the suggestion that Baulf is bringing this action to try to force money out of various people.” The case was adjourned.