ELECTION PETITION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10417, 22 March 1912, Page 3

ELECTION PETITION.

THE WATR.AU CASE

COUNSEL'S ADDRESSES. [Per Pnisss Association-.]

BLENHEIM, March 21

Mr Skerrott, addressing the Court in the election case, submitted that it was patent that, the petition was founded on tho unreliable gossip of a small town. The gossip was enshrined in the petition, and witnesses were called to substantiate charges formed on .gossip without foundation. Mr Sinclair had been zealous in raking up charges to be brought against Mr M'Callum. and the. investigation on Mr Sinclair's part was a,s thorough as Mr Sinclair could make it. Tho matters wanting consideration were reduced to three, treating at Grovetown and Okarnniio, alleged hiring of conveyances on election clays and alleged payment or promise of payment to Morrison as canvasser. The principle to be applied to respondent was a system of corrupt practices by which votes were influenced. Tho question of treating always had cbtno under ono or other of tho provisions of tho statute. Treating might ho offered under common law, but where was an election upset by ono offence of treating? No treating had been proVed in the present case. He quoted tho sections bearing on corrupt or illegal practices. Treating was not a crime at common law and a criminal offence could not be created. He submitted that treating was giving drink on tho day of the poll to influence votes on tho day of tho poll. The point was not of great importance to his client, as ho submitted that tho offence of treating had not been proved. In regard to the Grovetown treating there, was no excessive treating. Sutherland paid. M'Calluni was present, but was not identified with the '• shout. Ho bad not used it as tho occasion of a demonstration in M'Callum's favour or influencing opinion in his favour. The treating was a mere incident oi the election. Men had not been brought from their homes. They wcro at the meeting and would have had a drink in any case. All had been done with perfect openness, that treating in no way affected tho first ballot, as Mr M'Calluni was defeated, and a second ballot had to take place. The petition ought to have been confined to tho second ballot. As to tho Okaramio case, what ho said with regard to Grovetown applied there also, With regard to the vehicles there was no evidence on oath that a contract or payment- had been made, and on that ground lio submitted that tho Court would ngt hold the charge proved. Mr Sinclair had expressly said that he regarded Mr M'Callum as a witness of the truth. They had Mr M'Callum's positive denial of payment or contract to pay. They had Parker'B evidence the same way. lie pointed out the dirious circumstance that tho account to Macey came in after tho petition had been lodged. Hogan entered the debits of vehicles hired in tho ordinary way of business, so that ho could submit them to his directors for approval, and tho bill was not meant to bo sent out. A, new clerk sent it out. As to tho Morrison ehargo thoro i was no evidence on oath that Morrison had been paid for his services as canvasser. What Morrison said outside the Court was not evidence against M'Callum. Ho submitted that there was nothing else the respondent had to answer. Mr Sinclair had referred to the Seddon matter. There was no proof whatever against Ml* M'Calhim with regard to the Humphreys transaction. With regard to the grain store liquor, there wa« no evidence whatever against Mr M'Callum. Excess of expenses over £2OO had not been proved. On other paragraphs of the petition no evidence had been called at all. Mr Sinclair admitted that the cars mentioned as lent from Dalgety and Co. were not used for election purposes but for business. Mr Sinclair, addressing the Court, said that the Grovetown affair took place the day before tho election. Ho quoted authorities to show that if arink were given to one man by a candidate or his agent with tho object of influencing votes the election must bo declared void. Ho relied: on Sadd's evidence. Mr M'Calluni asked Sadd to come along to tho hotel and lower Sutherland's pockets. As to the contention that it was only a social function, groups oIF five or seven would have gone to the hotel and paid in cash, not practically tho whole population of Grovetown. Sutherland did not pay for tho drink at tho time, but waited till he paid £1 12s fid for the Grovetown Hall. He submitted that ' shout" was made by Mr M'Callum to influence votes. It was a political "shout" on tho evo of the election. As to the grain store liquor, ho submitted that Heaty had proved that Dodson admitted that beer was in the office of A. M'Callum on election day, and admitted that drink had been supplied to several people there. Regarding tho vehicles, from the MMvenzio Company. a lawyer dealing with a company must know that a man getting 12« Gd a" day had no power to givo awav his employer's vehicles to the extent of £3O free. It was a significant 'fact that Hogan had not entered tho rehioles in the advance book of the company, as was usual. Hie petitioners submitted that ho dared not do so. Hogan also did not bring tho matter before tho directors of tho company. Hogan not only pretended to supply vehicles free but incurred debts for other vehicles loaned to the M'Tvenzie Company. Another significant fact was that the secretary of tho companv referred the accounts to Macey for "payment. The account rendered to Macey after the petition was lodged was repudiated as a. matter of form by Macev, yet Macey complained of a vehicle being diverted for a wedding party. Would he do this if the vehicles were a gift? Parker or Goodman had no right, as Mr M'Ctillum ought, as a lawyer, to have known, to give the vehicles of tho company as a gift, Good, man lieing only the mortgagee and Parker a mere shareholder. As to ; Parker's cars, it was proved that ! Parker made £4 out of tho use of M.'Galium s car. That was equivalent to M'Callum paying £4 for tho use of one of Parker's cars. That brought i the contract within the four corners ' of tho Aet. Regarding tho Morrison j charges. Morrison had consulted AViffen ! whether he should accept the offer of £1 per day. He submitted that that wns the truth of the exact transaction- ft Was absurd to suppose that a working man would work four or five days for nothing. Macey had denied the contract. His Honour: Is there any evidence of that contract? Mr Sinclair, continuing, said that ho only had Morrison's statements. As to the Mirza beer transaction, why was it that the entrv in Dod«on'>s book was marked "M'Callum,'' instead of "•Tonkins." Why was not- .Jenkins called P Coming to tho Best account, he contended that Best's account for £lO showed M'Callum's return to bo incorrect. Til his mind it was abundantly clear that erasures had been made within the Inst fortv-eight hours. The Court, adjourned till next day.