“WE OUGHT TO HAVE WON.”

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17834, 30 April 1926, Page 14

“WE OUGHT TO HAVE WON.”

SIDELIGHTS THROWN ON WAIRAU FIGHT. LABOUR CANDIDATE NOT SURE OF MINUTE BOOK. (Special to the "Star.”) BLENHEIM, April 29. An echo of the general election campaign of last year was heard at the Magistrate’s Court., before Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M.. when Robert Burgess, now of Christchurch, describing himself as organising secretary for Mr B. J. Cooke (who contested the Wairau seat in the interests of the Labour Party) proceeded against Mr Cooke and certain officials of the Wairau branch of the party to recover the sum of £3O, alleged to be due to him as salary for his services during the election campaign. The defendants counter-claimed for the recovery of moneys alleged to have been received by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants, these amounts being set out as follows:—Balance of petty cash £6 16s lOd: cash received for "party buttons” sold or buttons to the value of £5; and price of a mimeograph sold by plaintiff, £2: making a total counter-claim of £l3 16s lOd. The coun-ter-claim, however, was abandoned on plaintiff’s counsel objecting that it fiad not been filed two clear days before the hearing. ACCURACY OF MINUTES. Plaintiff’s evidence had been taken in Christchurch, and he was not present at the hearing.. He relied on a minute dated September 3. appointing him secretary at £5 per week, but the defence alleged that this minute had been "faked, - ’ and produced a different set of minutes covering the same meeting. these showing that Burgess was appointed without salary, though it was understood that his expenses would be paid. The defence went further and said that all Burgess’s travelling expenses had been paid by the candidate, as they were incurred, but that after the election Burgess was given a sum of £lO to cover any odd expenses which he might have met himself. COMMITTEE S TROUBLES. B. J. Cooke, the defendant, on being asked if he was the defeated Labour candidate, replied cheerfully : "Too true I am! ’’ He was cross-examined •at some length by Mr M’Nab on behalf of plaintiff, and his answers to the questions gave a hint as to the difficulties, financial and otherwise, under which his committee had to labour, with a split in the camp thrown in by way of adding spice to the occasion. Mr M’Nab: Did matters go smoothly with the Labour candidate?—We ought to have won. Wc had a good bearing. (Laughter.) Were there no disputes with Mr Burgess?—There was a little friction. When was that?—The witness said it arose out of Burgess’s failure to show the witness a telegram from Mr Nash, announcing that he was going to speak in Blenheim, with the result that the local committee had no knowledge of Mr Nash’s projected visit until the day before he arrived, so that no adequate arrangements could be made for the meeting. It was purely an accident that the witness became aware of the projected visit at all. "When we denounced his neglect," proceeded the witness, "I spoke to him like a Dutch uncle!" RELATIONS STRAINED. Replying to a further question, witness said that despite this trouble and other points of friction Burgess had never resigned, though it was a fact that for the last two weeks of the campaign relations were very strained and the witness travelled around the electorate without Mr Burgess, The party did not dismiss him because it was not thought desirable to have a "flare up" at that stage of tho campaign. Counsel:You consider that the min-ute-book put in by Mr Burgess is trumped up?--4 have very strong opin ions of it Do you suggest that Burgess "faked" this minute book and forged the signatures in continuation of the various minutes have very strong eonvte* tions on it very strong. The Magistrate: Do you know Mr Roth well’s signature? 1 do not, Counsel read extracts from the min utes, which witness admitted were a true record of what had taken place "And vet you suggest that these minutes are framed up f" t have very strong convictions, You will see that there ate different coloured inks, NO BANKING ACCOUNT, Counsel continued to question the witness in regard to the signatures Which the witness said he did not know Who was authorised to sign cheques? one. No one could sign cheques?- We had no banking account. The Magistrate: Then cheques would not lie much good?. Not on your life. W*e had no funds. The witness added that, at one time the committee considered opening a hanking account, but nothing came of it. The Magistrate: I take, it that that proposal arose during the hopeful stages of the campaign? Too true! We had great hopes, but they came to noth“’the Magistrate: You had great expectations?—Yes, and wc came a "thud"l Mr M’Nab: Early in the campaign Burgess was not taken with you on your trips around the electorate? That is so. DANGEROUS GROUND. W*hy was that?—lt is very dangerous ground, and I have purposely kept off it. I ask you not to press the question for the sake of Mr Burgess himself, and particularly for the sake of his wife and children. Mr Mae Nab: Well, the fact remains that he was not taken with you, and it is obvious that there was some unpleasantness. If he was not satisfactory to you, why didn’t you dismiss him ? For the simple reason that wc didn't want to show a split in our party. The Magistrate: Did you contemplate that the campaign would cost you anything personally?—No, all my expenses were to be paid. Mr Mae Nab: By whom?—By the N.Z. Labour Party. The Magistrate: Did you have their authority to engage a secretary at £5 »er week?—No. _ Mr Mae Nab: Indn't they want an estimate of the cost of the. campaign?— Yes- We supplied it. and it was produced in Court. The total estimate was £205. Was there any guarantee that the Labour Party would pay your expenses?—There was no actual guaran-

In reply to other questions as to whether all his election expenses were paid, the witness said they had been paid or arranged for. The Magistrate found for the defendants, with £3 11s costs.