THE WAIRAU SEAT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 73, 22 March 1912, Page 6

THE WAIRAU SEAT.

'ELECTORAL COURT CONCLUDES THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE. JUDGMENT TO BE GIVEN TO-DAT (Per Press Association.! Blenheim, March 21. The Election Court resumed this morning the hearing the petition against the election of Richard McCollum as member for Wairau. ■ Arthur Wiffen, one of the candidates at last election, said that Morrison told him he was getting £1 a day from Macey for working for Mr McCallum, which Macey had said Mr McCallum had nothing to do with. James O’Neill gave similar ''evidence. Healy, recalled, said Mr Duncan gave him a cheque for £l7l os Sd. Witness did not know whether Mr Duncan had returned his expenses as £79. Mr Sinclair asked the Court, under section 198 of the Legislature Act, to give him- permission to call evidence of illegal practice against William Humphrey, of Sodden.

Mr Skerrett -objected to intnlnc ii,g this case in the present proceed ings.

Mr Justice Williams said th it the evidence against Humpnrovs was net evidence against McCallum unless it was afterwards proved that Humphreys was McCallum’s agent.

The Court decided to admit the evidence.

Mr Patrick Meehan, of Seddon, said that Humphreys, who had previously acted as deputy returning officer, told him that he was not acting this‘time' as he was getting paid far better by not touching it. Mr Sinclair wanted to introduce the name of Mr Wright, of Seddon, as having, made a bet which counsel claimed affected the result of the election. Their Honors ruled this cut under! clause 25 of the petition, as agency was not even alleged. They refused to admit the principle that because a man was a strong supporter of a political candidate he was therefore his agent. Joseph William Humphreys, late schoolmaster at Seddon, said that he was not an intimate friend of Mr McOallum. He proposed a vote of confidence, in ,him .at the Seddon meeting. He was interested in the return cf Air McOallum as a representative of tiaef "liberal - Party; - He : cdhya&sed nobody..in, Mr MeCallum’s interest. On the day of the first ballot there was a quantity of liquor at a private ha|l dm Sefklbrf, of wifich -witness wjs a shareholder, add secretary. ‘ It belonged -to him and a few friends and had nothing to do with politics. On the second ballot day he had no liquor. He didn’t say after either ■ballot that he had Sf f IsJr *McCallum’s money left. He denied Mr Meehan’s statement regarding his not , acting as deputy returning officer.

To Mr Skerrett: He never- asked any mail’ He was going, to vote. The liquor on the first ballot day was not used in any way to further Mr McCallnm’s election. , Ho had received neither payment nor promise of payment from Mr, McGalMm.] J : Tasman Frank Bell, secretary cf Mr McCall urn’s committee, said -that he had received no payment, or promise of . payment. The account as returned (£116) represented all the expenditure in connection with the election and all liabilities. Ho made no payment either, to Frank Morri;son or J. W. Humphreys, and during the election he heard nothing of any such payment. A day cr two before Christmas' he got a message by telephone from Mr Jen’ at Ward, asking him to get Dodson's Brewery to forward a cask of beer care of Harwood cr some such name at Ward. The special instructions to get the beer away to a particular train were also given, and they also stated that the money for the beei would be sent later. Ho gave the order as requested. A few days afterwards he received a letter from Mr Jenkins enclosing postal notes for 38s. . He told Mr Dodson to call for the money, but he hadn’t yet done so. The supply of beer had no connection with the election. Harwood was a carter at Ward.

A McCallnm, recalled, said' that ho didn’t ■ give H. W. Jenkins any money and didn’t leave any anywhere for him. E. H. Best, recalled, said that his clerk made entries in the ledger debiting Mr McOallnm with the car hire. As soon as witness discovered the entries had gone through he altered them. This was shortly after the election. This closed the case for the petitioners. Mr Skerrett- called only one witness, John Henry Sutherland, chairman of Mr McGallum’s Grovetown committee, who said that after the meeting the night before the fir;, ballot he asked Mr McCallnm to the hotel to have a drink. On the way out witness asked about 10 friends to come too. When he reached the hotel there was a fair crowd there. Witness called for drinks. He hadn’t enough money at the time to pay for all the drinks that were served. To Mri Sinclair: He called and offered payment for them a few days afterwards, but the licensee’s wife said that any time would do. There was no connection between the date of the receipt of a cheque from Mr McCallnm and the date of paying the account for drinks. This closed the case for respondents. Mr Sinclair asked leave to call evidence regarding the Dryden alleged bribery incident. Mr Skerrett objected. His friend had deliberately closed his ease and their Honors had previously given

permission to call evidence if he wished and reserved his (Mr Skorrett’s) objection. Their Honors overruled Mr Sinclair’s argument and upheld the objection that the now clause did not amount to bribery. Mr Skerrett, in addressing the Bench, said that the charges were founded on gossip. All that could bo insinuated against Mir McCalium had been done. The charges worthy of consideration had boon reduced to three, viz., (1) Treating at Grovetown and Okaramio; (2) alleged hiring of conveyances on election days; (3) alleged payment or promise to pay Frank Morrison as canvasser between the two ballots. Regarding the treating it might ho an offence at common law, but had any single instance of treating ever voided an election at common law. He contended that an offence at common law had not been proved in this case. There was no renewal or corrupt treating nor excessive drinking. Mr McCallum was not the host and there was no demonstration in bis favour. It was a more incident of an elective, meeting and nothing was hidden. At the first ballot on the day after the Grovetown incident Mr McCallum was the unsuccessful candidate. Re li e allegation of payment or contracting for payment for hire of vehicles on the election days, there was no evidence on oath that -payment war made. There was no contract for payment for the use of the McKenzie ■Carrying Company’s vehicles, and the account was repudiated immediately it was sent in. The same argument applied re Parker’s and Best’s cars. With reference to the alleged payment to Morrison there was no evidence on oath that he was paid or promised payment. Regarding his statements about receiving £1 a day, it was evident that Morrison was running with the .hare and limiting with the hounds. He contended that no evidence connecting Mr McCallum with the Seddon, Mirza, and Groveroad liquor episodes had been tendered.

Mr Sinclair said the Grovetown incident occurred two hours before the commencement of polling day. lie quoted a case in 1869 in support oi his contention that tho election must bo voided. He contended that the evidence that Mr McOallum said “We’ll lower Sutherland’s pociev’ proved the petitioner’s case up xi the hilt. The non-payment for drink: at once .stamped it as an election offence. Regarding the Grove mud episode, Mr Dodson admitted the been wan in Mr McGallnm’s office tho day of tho first ballot. Mr Dodson supplied liquor to electors. Hyndman had testified that a number of voters w> re tn<lc?r the influence of 'iqnor jugm. tnoy came into' the booth. In c-(>» • nection with the McKenzie (.ariving Company case, Mr-McCallnm dealt I. •• company and h i.V: ’ Jia' i with the company and must have kuowiwt'hat iWas not the manage!'.' place to give away the use of vehicles and men to the extent of £3O. Hug an also had incurred debts for the company to pay and referred’ the account to Macey, who repudiated li because the petition had been lodge:!. Re Parkers’ cars, counsel contended it had been proved that Parker hid made £4 from the use of Mr McCollum's car. That was equivalent to Mr McOallum paying £1 for the use •of one of Parkers’ cars. Counsel next dealt with Morrison’s charges. Moiv rison consulted Mr Wiffen, a former employee, ;as to whether he should accept £1 per day, and.had admitted to another man that lie had done well out of the election and had received £1 per day. Mr Justice Chapman: Has anyonegiven evidence of such a contract? Mr Sinclair: Ho, wo have only Morrison’s statement. Mr Sinclair, continuing, re the supply of beer at Mirza, why was the entry in Dodson’s book in Mr McOallum’s name? Why did the Dodson Company not touch the money for beer? Mr Justice Williams: But the bee; 1 was supplied after the elections. Mr Sinclair: It is suspicious that the money lay unclaimed. Counsel, continuing, as to the Seddon episode Humphreys was shown to be a supporter of McOallum and had supplied liquor on polling day. In reference to the Okaramio incident if Mr Wiffen did wrong in shouting for the electors, thrjt didn’t excuse Mr McOallum. If their Honors were cf opinion that Best charged Mr McCallum for the use of the car it would be evidence of corrupt practice and would provide grounds for a fresh petition. The Court adjourned till Friday. Their Honors intimated that they wore not certain whether they would jje able to deliver judgment then.