SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2614, 23 September 1909, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22. (Before Mr. Justice Cooper.) AN ELECTION SEQUEL. The third day’s session of the Supreme Court, yesterday, opened with the trial of George Edward Darton, draughtsman, of Gisborne, for an illegal practice under the Legislature Act of 1908. There were two charges that the accused on or about the 25th of November, 1908, at Gisborne, did commit an illegal practice within the meaning of the Act by paying money on account of the hire of carriages for the conveyance of electors going to and from the polls for the purpose of promoting the election of the said George Edward Darton at the Parliamentary election held at Gisborne on the 24th, day of November. The accused pleaded “not guilty” from the dock, but was afterwards .permitted to sit beside his counsel, Mr W. L. Rees. Mr J. W. Nolan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The jurymen wore drawn as follows: —Messrs Fred Parker, Theo. Armstrong, Thos. Dalrymple, Ernest Ivil, Wm. Geo. Stevenson, Frederick C. Wilkinson, Clias. Gibson, F. J. Teat, Ed. Chas. Stillman, Lawrence A. Ellerbeck, David Cameron, David M. Wilson, B. S. Cox. Mr Teat was chosen foreman. The Crown Prosecutor, in opening, said the jury wore not trying an ordinary criminal case. The offence was a purely statutory one, and the result of the conviction did not interfere with the accused’s liberty. The penalty, if the accused were convicted, would he a fine, the amount of which lay at the Judge’s discretion, and the Court could also add certain disqualifications if it thought fit. He thought the case was clear, though he believed the accused had acted unwittingly. This made the offence a purely technical one, and the breach of the law the evidence would show was accidental. If the jury were satisfied that there had. been a technical breach of the statute it was clearly their duty to find the defendent guilty, for ignorance of the law was no excuse. The Statute of 1908 provided that no payment should be made for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate on account of vehicles for conveying electors to the poll. If, as the defence would l probably allege, the cabs hired 1 were not for the purpose of promoting his own election, the jury would have to believe that Darton was philanthropic enough to engage them for the benefit of his opponent. The first witness was Henry 7 Ewart Hill, Registrar of Electors and Returning Officer for the District of Gisborne. He stated that Darton was a candidate at the last general election, and there was a second ballot on November 24th, between the Hon. Jas. Carroll and Mr Darton, which resulted in the former being elected. Subsequent to the ballot Mr Darton called on the witness with reference to claiming expenses with regard to cab hire. Witness, who had not looked up the Act. had said that as far as he knew Mr Darton could charge up to for cab hire. The accused afterwards made out a certificate of expenses which was duly lodged.

In reply to Mr Rees, the witness said he certified the accused’s account, and forwarded it to Wellington. The accused had asked him if he could stand down from the second ballot, but the witness had told! him he must go on according to the provisions of the Second Ballot Act. Mr Darton had said that he thought that unless people were brought to the poll he thought no one would be sufficiently interested to vote. The witness understood that the accused was going to spend the £SO allowed by Government in taking electors to the poll. Counsel: Could you tell from what you saw on the day of the poll which way the people brought in cabs were voting, or whether they were being asked to vote for anyone in particular? —No. Witness added that he saw no party placards on the cabs. The second halllot resulted as follows: Carroll 3218, Darton 2484. There had been an agreement on the part of tho candidates not to address any meetings between the first and second ballots. Albert Perifold, cab driver and proprietor, said that on the day after the first election the accused hired him and his cab to take people to the poll. On the day of the poll a man named Dick Bates was on the box of the cab directing him where to call for people. People were also picked’ up in the street. Mr Darton paid the bill subsequently. Mr Rees: Did you intimate to anybody that you were driving them to voto for a particular candidate? —No. Did Bates? —I didn’t hear him. Did you refuse to drive anyone who asked to be taken to the poll?—No. Joseph English, cab proprietor, said he was engaged by Mr Darton on the F polling day and worked under the instructions of Mrs Robert Johnson. He was cross-examined on similar lines to the last witness and gave replies to the same effect. James Henry Richards, cab proprietor, gave evidence as to having worked under the directions of Mrs Walker on the polling day. When she left his cab he worked under the direction of anybody at the poll. A fourth cab proprietor named John Christie, was called. He was told on the day of the second ballot by another cabman that he was wanted for the poll. He gavo a receipt made out to Mr Darton. Mr Rees, in opening the defence, said he appreciated the mild tone adopted by the prosecution, but at the same time he would call evidence which would convince them of the accused’s innocence. The Act alleged to have been contravened was not circulated in Gisborne at the time and moreover the vehicles were hired for the purposes of tho poll and not for the benefit of any candidate, His Honor said that tho issues to he decided by the jury were: —(1) Were the said payments made for the purposes of promoting the election of the accused? (2) Were they for the purposes of the election generally? He would ask the jury to decide them and counsel could argue tho legal aspect afterwards. Geo. John Alexander Johnson wns put in the box and stated that one morning he had a conversation with the acoused. The latter asked if cabs could , be hired for the second ballot, and the I* witness said that as far as he rcmem- % bered cabs could he employed as long as they bore no party placards and were used for the purpose of picking up electors generally. Mr Darton had' mentioned that he wanted to withdraw from tho second ballot but could not under the Act. . George Edward Darton gave evidence on his own behalf. 'He had told Mr Carroll that ho was perfectly satisfied with the result of the first ballot and would be content to withdraw, they both agreed to take no active steps m the shape of addressing meetings or that sort of thing. Counsel: Would you have gone on if .the Act had not compelled you to? —Certainly not. The accused knew it was Mr Hill s pp ixiioa. that he could hire the cabs, and l .

thought the other had said that ho could. He also asked if the money would he refunded, and Mr Hill said that if he got vouchers the money would be allowed up to £SO. The accused gave no instructions as to whom tho cab 9 were to call for, nor did any of his committee. There was, moreover, no marked role of electors. Counsel: What was your object in spending tho money. Mr Darton: I thought it was public money and the public should get the benefit of it. (Laughter.) Mr Rees: And the cabmen. His Honor: How much did you pay altogether?—£49. The accused only hired half of the cabs from Redstone’s stables, leaving the rest for the other side to hire. He would not have paid for the cabs out of his own pocket even if it were legal, unless he had been told that the money would he refunded. Mr Rees, addressing the jury, said that there was not a tittle of evidence against the accused except that he had paid for the cabs. The Crown Prosecutor, in a brief address, said that the fact that Mr Darton was much closer to Mr Carroll at the .second ballot than at the first was significant. His Honor, in summing up, said that in any case tho accused had acted in good faith. The jury would have to consider whether the substantial object in engaging the cabs was that of promoting liis own election. The jury found in the affirmative on the first issue mentioned, and on the direction of the Judge returned a verdict of “guilty.” His Honor said that it was a very singular ease, and he had no doubt that thebreach of the law was unintentional. The defendant would, be fined 40s without costs and the Court would make no declaration of disability. “I make no order as to costs,” said His Honor, “because the accused was misled by the mistaken opinion of the returning officer, and he will be sufficiently punished 1 by not having his expenses refunded.” On the second count the accused was found not .guilty. , DIVORCE PETITION. The afternoon was. occupied in the hearing of the case in which Eleanor Edwards petitioned for a divorce from William Edwards. Mr L. T. Burnard appeared for the petitioner and Mr W. L. Rees for the respondent. The jury were drawn as follows: Messrs F. C. Wilkinson, William Judd, Thos. Dalrymple, Theo. Armstrong, Frank Yates, Harry Higgs, Richard McCarthy, Jas. W. Bain, Geo. C. Tower V. 11. Gully, David Cameron and William C. McLean (foreman). The public were ordered to leave tho Court and during Mr L. T. Burnard’s opening of the case His Honor forbade the publication of the evidence. Later in tlie afternoon, however, His Honor explained that it would be as well if the main story told in the evidence was published. The petitioner, in the box, stated that she was married in 1883, and had had eight children, six of whom were living. The eldest was twenty-three years of age. She lived happily for many years with liei* husband, but trouble began after 1902, when, on his return from a trip to England, he brought a girl whom he introduced as his half-sister. The respondent and the girl used to go out in the evenings together, and it seemed to Mrs. Edwards that they were unduly familiar in the house. After repeated suggestions on her part, the young woman was sent to work, but never stayed long in one place, and eventually came and settled at home. _ About 1905 the husband began to neglect his family, and, to provide clothes for them, the petitioner went out to work as a nurse. She used to go home at intervals, but as time went on her husband’s attitude towards her became brutal, and lie struck her on several occasions. In June, 1907, a deed of separation was signed. Edwards agreeing to pay towards the maintenance of two of the children. In twelve months, however, lie onlv paid two pounds. Two daughters of the parties also gave evidence ill support of the petitioner. , All three witnesses were severely cross-examined as to the terms they had been on with the respondent at periods when it was alleged he was behaving badly to bis 1 wife and fa only. Letters written by the mother and one of her daughters to the respondent were read in Court. They were of an affectionate nature, and referred in very friendly terms to Edward s lialfThe hearing of the evidence for the petitioner continued till nearly six o’clock, when the Court adjourned till 10 o’clock this morning.

CIVIL CASES. The next cases set down for hearing are, Godfrey F. Wilson and another v. Frederick Hall 1 and Oswald Sheet, and Robert Paterson v. Arthur Turtley Webb. AN AUCKLAND CASE. TPer Press Association.! AUCKLAND, Sept. 22. In the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Sim granted a decree absolute in the case of Harry James Fraser v. Mildred Esther Fraser on the ground of misconduct with McLure, alias Gray, alias Fraser. Counsel for complainant stated that the case had considerable notoriety from the fact that the co-respond-ent was related to one of the noble families in England. Ho i had run through a fortune here, and had been sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for obtaining money under false pretences.