ELECTION EXPENSES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3773, 6 July 1926, Page 75

ELECTION EXPENSES.

MEMBER’S PROSECUTION SOUGHT. WRIT AGAINST RETURNING OFFICER. AUCKLAND, July 1. Under the Legislature Act, 1908, a candidate for parliamentary honours is required within 70 days to forward a return of his electoral expenses to the returning officer for the district. During the last general elections William Jones, who was the successful candidate for Marsden, failed to comply with the provisions of the Act in that he rendered an incomplete return. He was called upon to file a return in compliance with the Act, and subsequently he put in an amended return, which, however, did not satisfy the returning officer. On March 8 Jones filed a third return, giving details of his expenses, These the Returning Officer considered complied with the Act. The three returns were searched by Samuel MTnnes and Angus John M‘Kay. and they called upon the returning officer (Frank Bird) to take proceedings against Jones for. failing within the prescribed time to put in a true and correct account of his expenses. The returning officer refused to take any action, and mandamus proceedings were instituted. . „ _ The action was heard by Mr Justice Stringer in the Supreme Court this morning. Mr J. H. Luxford. instructed by Mr Trimmer, appeared for Samuel MTnnes, and Angus John M‘Kay. farmers of Wliangarei, and Mr Fatterson appeared for Frank Bird. . .. . The statement of claim set out that on January 11, 1920, William Jones filed an account of a payment made by him, or on his behalf, in the conduct or management of the election, but that such accounts did not faithfully comply with the provisions of Section 173 of the Legislature Act 190 S As a result of a request from defendant for further particulars William Jones med an amended account on February 17. This did not comply with the Act. At the insti gation of plaintiff (Samuel MTnnes) Jones filed a further account on» M " ch *» N neither did this comply with the Act. No further action was taken by plaintiffs at this stage, as defendant requested them to wait pending a reply from the Chief Electoral Officer, at Wellington, to whom defendant liad written for instructions On May 3 Samuel M’lnnes sent a written demand to defendant cabling upon him to take proceedings. On June 4 the plaintiffs’ solicitors sent a final demand to defendant to take proceedings On June 5 defendant replied refusing to take proceedings. It is claimed tha Jones transmitted an account that was false in that he omitted to, ’“'"de, concealed, items amounting to over £9U being expenses incurred through the hire of halls, advertising, and Hunting durin„ h * The for a writ of mandamus moved by Mr Luxford was that Frank Bird, returning officer, should be ordered to take proceedings against W llliam Jones on the grounds:— 1 That William Jones was a candidate for the Marsden electorate at the general election held on November 4, That he did not with 70 days after the day on which the result of the election was given transmit a true account in accordance with the provisions of section 173 of The Legislature Act, 1908,” of all payments made bv, or on his behalf. *3. That he has not yet transmitted a true account. . 4 That he has transmitted an account that is false on a material point. 5 That plaintiffs have made a demand that defendant take proceedings, and that defendant has refused, and still refuses to take action.

Mr Luxford traversed at length the legal aspects of the action, and pointed out that it was not taken in bad faith, nor was there any suggestion of corruption. That, however, did not lessen the fact that there had been neglect on the part of defendant. In outlining the case for the defence Mr Patterson stated that defendant, as returning officer, was an officer of the Crown acting as such, and under the control and direction of the Chief Electoral Officer, appointed under The Legislature Act, 1908,” and also under the control and authority of the Minister in Charge of the Electoral De partment. On January 11, 1926, said counsel, William Jones filed an account of pay nients made by him, but this account was amended on two occasions as it was alleged that the ’eturns were not true and were false in certain particulars. On May 13 the plaintiff. MTnres, had an explanation given by Jones If Jones had not complied with the provisions of the Act, then such non-compliance was of a technical and trivial nature and was not due to any bad faith on his part, and defendant had exercised proper discretion in the matter. Coun sel also urged that plaintiffs had not a specific and legal right to call on defendant to take proceedings. After quoting at considerable length on the legal aspect of the case Mr Patterson 9aid that before a writ was issued the court should be satisfied that the charges had been proved. They were grave charges and might constitute malpractice If the payments said to have been made by Jones were totalled up and added to account he submitted it would reach over £2OO. That would amount to cor rupt practice, and he would be liable to be unseated. It had been suggested that he had made a false return, and that in itself constituted an indictable offence. Counsel submitted that the facts did not call for the issue of a writ of mandamus. In reply, Mr Luxford said the first question was whether there was discretion exercised by defendant. Plaintiffs had to show that there had been a breach of the Act. It was considered that there was no discretion on the part of defendant. Whilst there had been a breach of the section of the Act there was no ulterior motive in taking the action, the plaintiffs merely contending that as electors they had the right to call for an investigation. After legal argument his Honor reserved his decision.