REPORT OF THE MOTUEKA ELECTION COMMITTEE.

H.—No. 14.

24

Mr. D. Sotsel

marin,

Bth Sept., 1871

spoken of to make use of such expressions as those now sought to be elicited from the witness. I submit that the Committee must deal with the evidence in the same way as if the case were under investigation in a Court of Law in a criminal charge. Mr. Allan : I submit wo are entitled to givo this evidence. We show that Bell was agent, and that Bosselmann goes to these men, through him, and treats with them. Mr. Travers : It does not show that he treated with them in any degree. Mr. Allan : Ho certainly says that he treated with them ; and Bosselmann became Bell's agent and communicated with these people. Of course, if I attempted to call a witness who is not shown to be in any way brought into connection with Mr. Bell, tho evidence would not be admissible, because I should not show in any way an agency on his part. I contend .that I have shown quite enough to lay the foundation for Bosselmann's statement. The Chairman : If you show agency at all, it would be that Henry Bosselmann was agent for the other. Mr. Allan .- He becomes also agent to Bell; ho consents to certain terms with him.' I contend that Henry Bosselmann was the agent on behalf of the other Germans : that ho is, therefore, the principal representing them, and that any communication he had with Bell he is entitled to communicate it t» them in return. The Chairman : As their agent; not as Bell's. Mr, Allan .- But he to a certain extent is Bell's agent. The Chairman : I should not think so from Bell's evidence, Mr. Allan: If I appoint an agent to negotiate with some o'no else, and that agent communicates to mc what has taken place, would that not bo evidence ? The Chairman : He did not act as a go-between between those people and Bell for tho purpose of making terms, except for themselves. He was their agent, and I do not see how you make him the agent of anyone else. Mr. Allan : The Committee are not bound by strict rules of evidence. The Chairman : The Committee are desirous of obtaining every information they possibly can. It would be bettor to leave the Committee to consult among themselves whether, they would receive that evidence, as it may crop up again as part of these proceedings. After a brief deliberation in private, the Chairman informed Counsel of the result. He said : The Committee have come to the conclusion that it would be better that you should confine yourselves to the strict rules of evidence in putting questions yourselves to the witnesses ; but if you want anything not within tho strict rules of evidence, you must ask the Committee to put the questions. If they think the question should be asked, I shall put it as Chajrman. There is one question the Committee wish mo to ask the witness, and it is this : When they started from Kerr's Hill, did they start with the intention of voting for one particular candidate in preference to the other ? Mr. Travers : I may mention that it is shown in Cushing, a well-known authority in Parliamentary law, that the same general rules by which courts of law are governed prevail also in cases of controverted elections. The Chairman: When you are confining yourself to the strict rules ; but when you want to go beyond them, put the questions to the Committee through mc, and I shall put them to the witnesses. Examination continued — By the Chairman : When you started for the purpose of going to the polling-place, had you, or any of you, made up your minds to vote for any particular candidate ?—I was going to vote then for Sir David Monro. Wo were not going down at first, but David Kerr came up and asked us if we were going down to vote. We said, " No, we were not going down." We thought the election was over. We said, " Wo could not afford to leave the work —that it would not do for us to go down, as it would take us two days, or perhaps three." He said, " That he would take us down in tho cart —that we would be paid expenses, and that we would not lose anything by it." We said, " Yes, that wo would go down." You did not know the mind of the others, but, as far as you are concerned, you went down with the intention of giviug your vote for Sir David Monro ?—-It was my intention to vote for Sir David Monro. Did you go straight to the polling-place, or did you go anywhere else ?—We went to Palmer's. Had you any conversation there amongst y-ourselves as to the terms or conditions on which you should vote ? —I did not have any conversation, excqrt that Dreyer spoke to me in Palmer's. He asked mo if I was going to vote for Sir David Monro ? —I said, " I did not know yet." . You stated at startiug you intended to vote for Sir David Monro ; what made you hesitate afterwards ? —My brother said he would see Bell about it, and see if we would get anything, and if not we would not vote at all. When you said "if you could got anything," what was it that you intended when you said that ? Was it the expenses that Kerr said would be paid? —It was the expenses for travelling —for*; coming down. Mr. Allan : May I ask what the witness's brother said to him ? The Chairman: If it is as to any conversation between Bell and Bosselmann, you cannot ask it. Mr. Allan : Can I put it in this way : After his brother saw Bell, did his brother say anything to him ? The Chairman : You may ask him that. By Mr. Allan : After your brother had said he had seen Bell and Arnold, did he say anything as to what you should get ?- —He told me that we were to get Bs. per day. Did you vote after that?— Yes, we went down and voted for Sir David Monro. Did you go down to Palmer's afterwards ?—Yes, I did. Had you any refreshments there ? —Yes, wo had. When there, did you see Bell ?—Yes, he came into the room when we were having something to eat; I don't know whether it was breakfast or dinner.