ELECTION PETITION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10417, 22 March 1912, Page 1

ELECTION PETITION.

THE WAIRAU CASE. [Per Press Assori.mo.v] BLENHEIM, March 21

The Election Court this morning resumed the hearing of the charge against R. M'C'a.Hum of making contracts with Edward Parker for payment on account of the conveyance of electors to and from tiie poll, for the'purpose of promoting Mr M'Callum's election.

Patrick Meehan gave evidence that Humphreys was working' for Mr M'Galium at the election. Witness was asked by Mr Sinclair about a conversation.

Mr Skerrett objected, as agency had not been established between Humphreys and M'Galium. After argument their Honors said that Mr Sinclair had not made out that Humphreys was an agent. At the afternoon sitting Mr Sinclair submitted that under section 198 of the Legislature Act, 1!'*08, unless the Court otherwise directed, evidence as io corrupt or illegal practice could be gone into before it was shown that a candidate bad anything to do with it He asked the Court to give him permission to do that.

_ After argument. Sir Joshua Williams said that there was nothing to prevent Mr Sinclair prima facie showing if he could that Humphreys was guilty of a corrupt or an illegal practice and for that purpose eliciting evidence from the witness (Meehan) as to admissions made (o the witness by Humphreys, but such admissions were not to be evidence against M'Callum unless it were, proved that Humphreys was an agent of M'Callum.

Patrick Meehan, re-called., stated that' Humphreys said to him that he was not looking after a polling booth this time, as he was better naid. Witness bad a conversation witfi Wright. Mr Skerrett said that he did not understand the acl,ion of his learned friend in officiously importing into the case people really not concerned in it. Nothing but spite or malice could actuate him. Mr Sinclair said that he was not going to call Mr Wright, who was an absent, man. It was grossly unfair that the evidence sought should be brought out when Mr Wright was not there to protect himself. Wright held the commission of the peace, and Mr Sinclair tried to injure Wright without trying to to assist the petition against Mr M'Callum. The Court ought to protect Mr Wright in his absence. Mr Sinclair said that the matter affected the petition. Mr Justice Chapman asked how it affected the petition. Mr Sinclair raid that the witness could stand down until Mr Wright was called.

Sir Joshua Williams' said that paragraph 2o (relating to Wright and a wager alleged to have been made) contained matter wholly outside the issvie •the Court was trying. Mr Sinclair could not put the thing more strongly if he made a direct allegation against Wright. Section 25 could not be considered by the Court and must be struck out.. The paragraph did not allege agency between Wright and M'Callum. Mr Sinclair contended that a strong supporter constituted an agent. Sir Joshua Williams: Not at all. Joseph William Humphreys denied receiving payment or promise of payment for services rendered for Mr M'Callum with regard to the election. He denied canvassing for M'Callum at either ballot. There were twelve bottles of beer and one of whisky in Seddon Town Hall on election day. The whisky was stolen by the Reform Partv. The liquor was obtained by a party of five friends and was not for general consumption. Alexander Birnie. contractor, said that he worked on the railway works at Mirza in December last. He knew that beer was there after the second ballot. He heard it said that the beer cntno from the schoolmaster at Seddon (Mr Humphreys), who was retiring and wanted the "boys" to have n drink. Mr Sinclair said that one witness he intended calling had met with an accident, and another was not in a fit state to appear. He would close the evidence regarding the Mirza incident. Tasmnn Frank Bull said _ that he acted as secretary for Mr M Galium at the late election." He received no payment for his work and no promise of payment. He produced his bank book. Mr M'Callum paid several amounts to pay out where necessary. The statement produced represented all the money paid by Mr M'Callum. disbursed by witness for election expenses. All disbursements were properly returned by Mr M'Callum to the registrar. He made' no payment to either Frank Morrison or Humphreys. He knew of no payment made. With regard to the beer at Mirza a day or two before Christmas he got a message through the telephone from Jenkins from Ward, requesting him to ask Dodson's brewerv to send ss cask of beer, care of Tiar'good at Ward, stating that the money would be sent later. Witness gave the order to Frank Dodson. A few days after he received a letter from Jenkins enclosing postal notes for the beer. He told Dodson be had the money and he could get it by calling for it. Dodson had not called. The beer had no connection with the election.

To Mr Sinclair: Had only seen Jenkins once or twice. Did not know why Dodson had not called for the money. Did not know if anyone paid the money to Jenkins,

A. M'C'nllum, recalled, said that he gave 110 money to Jenkins and left no money anywhere for him for beer to go to Mirza. Ethelbert Henry Best, recalled by Mr Sinclair, said that entries in his ledger had not been erased, -He put a record as to the use of the cars down and the clerk came along in his absence and inserted £5, knowing that was the usual price for ear.''. Witness afterwards wrote over the entry "no charge-." as the cars were given gratuitously. The. alteration was not made recently. Hi is closed the case for the petitioners. Mr Skerrctt called only one witness, ■Tohn Henry Sutherland, chairman of MY M'Cnllmn's meeting at Grovetown, who corroborated Mr M'Callum's evidence about the treating at Grovetown. There* was no connection between the receipt of £1 12s 6d for payment for the use of the Grovetown Hall and the payment For drinks.

Counsel addressed the Court at considerable length. The Court adjourned till to-morrow, but Sir Joshua. Williams said it waa doubtful whether it would be able to give its decision then.