THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

Southland Times, Issue 22999, 19 September 1936, Page 7

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

ORGANIZER’S CLAIM FOR SALARY

EVIDENCE OF FORMER LEADER

NOT A MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE

(United Press Association.)

Auckland, September 18.

In his evidence, taken at Wellington and read in the Magistrate’s Court at Auckland in the hearing of the claim of Henry Charles Baulf, a political organizer, against several former Democrat Party leaders T. C. A. Hislop, the late leader of the Democrat Party, stated that he knew that the plaintiff acted as organizer for the party in Auckland, but knew nothing of the terms of his appointment. .His function was to act as leader of the candidates in the field, and address meetings throughout the country. He was not a member of the executive. Baulf claims to recover from the leader of the party the balance of salary and expenses allegedly owing for work as Auckland organizer for the party. Replying to Mr Mazengarb, Hislop said that he received a cheque for £3250 or thereabouts, made payable to his order, and handed to him by A. E. Davy while on tour. He was to hold that money for the general purposes of the party, and he lodged it to the credit of a Hislop Trust account. He did not pay the money to the treasurer, as he was expressly asked by Davy to keep it in his own account. The treasurer knew this, and no question was ever raised about it.

Payments From Account.

Witness made many payments out of this account -with the concurrence of the chief executive, Davy, and to the knowledge of the treasurer. Before General Election day the whole of the money had been applied in accordance with the arrangements made by the chief executive officer. This arrangement included a personal payment to witness. The total of this amount was £lOOO. This was paid to protect him to some extent against the anticipated financial loss resulting from a sixmonths’ campaign. Actually, he had suffered a heavy loss through the campaign. Apart from money out of the £3250, he had an arrangement with Davy for £lOO monthly for three months to be paid to his office under an arrangement he made with his partners. Default was made in the payment of one sum of £lOO, and witness paid it to his partners out of his own money. After the election he ascertained that an amount exceeding £l2OO was owing by the party for election expenses to various creditors. Witness had paid, purely ex gratia, approximately £7OO out of his own money since the election towards the payment of election debts. He did this because he did not like people to remain unpaid for their services. The organization with which his name was connected was a loser of a very considerable sum.