DEMOCRAT CAMPAIGN

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 222, 19 September 1936, Page 10

DEMOCRAT CAMPAIGN

CLAIM BY ORGANISER MR. HISLOP'S EVIDENCE [Per Press Association] AUCKLAND, Sept. 18. In evidence taken in Wellington and read at the Magistrate's Court, Auckland, in the Baulf case, Mr Hislop (late leader of the Democrat Party) stated that he knew plaintifl had acted as organiser of the party in Auckland, but knew nothing of the terms of his appointment. His (Mr Hislop’s) 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. R.eplying to Mr Mazengarb, Mr Hislop said that he received a cheque tor £3250 or thereabouts, made payable to his order, handed him by Davy while on tour. He was to hold that money for general purposes of the party, and he lodged it to the credit of a Hislop Trust Account, and 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. Witness made many payments out of this account with the concurrence of chief executive officer, Mr Davy, and to the knowledge of the treasurer. Prior to the general election day, the whole of the money had been applied in accordance with the arrangements made with the chief executive officer. The arrangement included a personal payment to witness, the total amount being £lOOO. This was paid to protect him to some extent against anticipated financial less resulting from the six months’ campaign. Actually he had suffered heavy loss through the campaign. Apart from the money out of the £3250, he had an arrangement with Davy for £lOO a month for three months to be paid to his office under an arrangement he had 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 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 moneys since the election towards the payment of the election. He did this because he did not like people to remain unpaid for services rendered to the organisation, with which his name was connected. He was personally the loser of a very considerable sum.