CHARGES DISMISSED

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3483, 25 March 1912, Page 2

CHARGES DISMISSED

WAIRAU- ELECTION PETITION,

AIR, AIicIGAILLUM HELD TO BE DULY ELECTED. COSTS AGAINST PETITIONERS. [Pol! PRESS ASSOCIATION.] BLENHEIM, March 23. At the Election Court, his Honor Sir Joshua Williams delivered judgment. in the petition against the return of Air. McGalhtm for Wairau, I dismissing the charges and ordering 1 petitioners to pay costs. The judgment commences by pointing out that the commission of "corrupt or illegal practice involves (serious penal consequences, and disqualification from holding any public or judicial office, and in order to establish: gui't the same degree of proof is required as in an ordinary criminal case. The evidence must be stick as to exclude any reasonable possibility of innocence. The Court held that the- charge against Wright in regard to making a bet of £3O to the inquiry. No evidence was offered in support of the allegation that McLaughlan stated that he was the agent of McCalium and- made several bets on the result, or in supiKirt cf the allegation that Humphreys was engaged as a canvasser.

The charges, therefore, which the Court had to consider were the charges of treating, of contracting for payment. on account of conveyance of voters to the poll, <>f expenditure on election in excess of the amount involved by the,Act. and in respect of the engagement of Morrison. There was absolutely no evidence in support- of the allegation' that A. MeCalhim gave certain electors money to buy liquor for. treating electors at Murza. There was nothing which it could be reasonably inferred that, according to the principles of -election agency, Humphries, in supplying drink at Seddon, was the- agent of McCall uni, or that lie was any more than a voluntary worker on the Liberal side. In respect to liquor at Grove Road, the evidence justified the conclusion that it- was not brought there or used for the purposes of the Parliamentary election, but in’connection with the licensing poll. There was nothing to shew that A. McCalium had anything • to do with the liquor through his office. Dealing with the oharges of treating at Grovetown and Ak.ar.amio, they were the only instances proved against- respondent of supplying liquor during the whole of this electoral campaign, in the course of which he had delivered 42 addresses, and there could be no suggestion that the supplying of liquor on these two occasions was part of a scheme of treating with a view to influencing the electors general y. The circumstances appertaining to the supplying cf drink .at. Grovetown were not sufficient to show that drink was supplied by Sutherland with the intention, either on his nart or on the part of McCalium, of influencing the result of the election or the votes of. tliejdeetors. The charges in respect to the alleged making «f contracts for the hire of vehicles had given rise to some difficulty. Referring to the use of Parker’s oars, the, judgment says'that McCallum was not seriously attacked as to Ids veracity- He "aimeared to the Court to give his evidence candidly, and their Honors saw no reason to doubt that he give it truthfully. If his version of this arrangement was accepted—and they did accept it as true, for they found Parker’s account substantially" the same—there was. therefore, no evidence to support the charge. In regard to the use of Best’s cars, the Court saw no reason to doubt to truth of respondent’s evidence. The alleged hire of vehicles from the McKenzie Carrying Company occupied the attention of the Court for a long time. It was objected that Logan and Co.’s manager had no authority, actual or presumed, to enter into any arrangement- to give the use of vehiels gratuitously. The Court is satisfied that so long as he acted honestly, a person in respondent’s position Js not bound to lcok beyond. The Court was satisfied upon respondent’s own evidence, confirmed bv Alt. Logan, that respondent, never intended to make a contract, or in any way render himself liable to pay for the vehicles. lii discussing the charges regarding excessive election expenses, their Honors said: It might have been expected that petitioners would have shown some foundation for the grave and specific charges set out in the particulars, as it is in a high degree improper that serious charges should be made without some solid' ground to support them. In respect to the charges as to the employment- of Frank Morrison for payment, petitioners’ case was supported by unsworn statements and ciri cuinstances l giving rise to suspicion. Respondent’s case -rested upon the sworn testimony of all persons impli- j rated, contradicting the unsworn statement, of MorrisonIn conclusion, we are of the opinion that the case for the petitioners has failed, and that Air. Richard AlcCal--lum has been duly elected. AVe shall ..report accordingly to his Honor the Speaker. The Court orders that the i petitioners . pay the respondent the costs of and incidental to the petition and trial thereof, to be taxed by the i Registrar, pursuant to the rules. |