ELECTION PETITION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3019, 24 January 1912, Page 8

ELECTION PETITION.

THE WAIRAU SEAT,

BLENHEIM, January 18,

In accordance with the act the petitioners against Mr M ‘Callurn’s election for the Wairau advertise the full text of the grounds of the petition in the Express to-night. The petition is very lengthy, compris lug 27 clauses. Summarised, the grounds of proceeding are as follow : : —That Mr M'Callum was guilty of bribery, treating, using undue influence, intimidation of electors, and other corrupt and illegal prac. tices, whereby an honest, pure, and failelection was not holden,' and that therefore the election should be declared void. It is alleged that after a meeting of elec, tors at Grovetown Mr M'Callum announced that his chairman of committee would “shout,” that they proceeded to a hotel, where Mr M'Callum addressed the electors and supplied them with drink and entertainment, which were paid for directly or by his agent; also that at Picton, Havelock, Marlborough town, Okaramio, Seddon, and Mirza Mr M'Callum provided meat, drink, and intoxicating liquors to large numbers of electors for the purpose of influencing their votes; that at Grove Road the polling place was at the grain store belonging to Mr M'Callum’s brother, where large quantities of liquor were supplied to electors, Mr M'Callum being an accessory; that the agent for Mr M'Callum at Seddon importuned the electors to vote for Mr M'Callum, and supplied them with liquor supplied by Mr M'Callum; that a member of Mr M'Callum’s committee gave to electors at Mirza money to buy liquor; that prior to the second ballot Mr M'Callum made contracts for payment for the conveyance of electors to and from the polling booth; that the secretary of Mr M.'Callum’s committee w-as seen to instruct the drivers of such conveyances to convey electors to the poll to vote for Mr M'Callum; that a prominent member of Mr M'Callum’s committee stood at the principal booth accosting electors and urging them to vote for Mr M'Callum, thus intimidating electors; that the same thing occurred at another polling place; that Mr M'Callum was guilty of a corrupt prac- i tice at the first ballot, inasmuch as his total expenses exceeded £2OO, and in the second ballot the total expense exceeded £SO; that Mr M'Callum promised money to canvassers for votes; that his chair- j man of committees offered money to the said canvassers to procure votes; and that the promised money was paid after the election. Clauses are also inserted alleging that bets were made by members of ■ Mr M'Callum’s committee and prominent supporters, thereby influencing the votes ; of electors.