WALLINGFORD ELECTION PETITION. recognisances to appear before a magistrate, and on the other allowed a sheriff to take him on civil process and convey him against his will in an opposite direction. It seems to me, therefore, that the reason why the privilege should be accorded applies fully to a case like the present, which is distinguishable from the case in the Queen's Bench, which has been so fully referred to at the bar and by my Lord. I think, therefore, that the defendant Benjamin is entitled to the privilege which had been claimed on his behalf, and that the rule for his discharge from custody should be made absolute. had been aprehended and taken there to be tried. CLEASBY, B.-I agree entirely in the conclusion which the court has arrived at. This does not appear to me to be a question of practice, it is rather a question of principle. It has nothing to do with the forms of procedure and the remedies which people have, but it relates to the administration of justice generally; and that being so, I certainly should be surprised to find that, governed as they are by the same principles entirely, there should be a difference in the practice of the courts in Ireland and in this country. We cannot, however, enter into the consideration of that question, although, perhaps, if the cases were thoroughly examined, it might appear that that difference does not really exist. It would take some time to establish that, but I have seen enough of the cases to satisfy myself that it might appear that the difference did not exist. Now I say this is a question of principle which relates to the administration of justice generally; and, although it appears to be, and sometimes is called, the privilege of the witness, in reality it is not his privilege personally, but it is a privilege because he is himself concerned at that time in the administration of justice. I quite subscribe in that sense to what is said by Mr. Justice Williams in the case of Montague v. Harrison (ubi sup.), in which he closes his judgment by saying that "the privilege is not of the witness but of the court, for the purpose of insuring the due administration of justice." Now that being the principle, that the process of a court of justice, for the purpose of enforcing a judgment, is not to operate as an obstruction to the administration of justice in another court, we have only to apply that principle to this case, and I think that the conclusion which we must arrive at is perKELLY, C. B.: This is an entirely new and very fectly obvious. In the ordinary course of the admi-important case, and both parties were fully justified nistration of justice in the police court, which we know in coming to the court. There must be no costs. is one which is governed by the privilege accorded by the police magistrate, a person is let out to go where he likes upon bail. It is true that in one sense he is said to be in the custody of the bail; but that only means that they are responsible for his appearance. It is for him afterwards (and he is perfectly master of his own actions) to determine whether he will or will not make his appearance and take the part that is required of him in the administration of justice. That being so, it is essentially the object, under this protection that is accorded to all persons who are required to take part in the course of the administration of justice, that they should feel that, in going thither and in returning thence, they will not be molested by the process of any civil court. Is that conclusion, which is obviously applicable to the present case, and leaves no doubt as to what we ought to do in it, at all at variance with any decision that has been arrived at by the courts of this country? Certainly not. I was very anxious to see the case of Hare v. Hyde, in the Queen's Bench, which has been referred to in argument, to see whether the person who was arrested, and whom the court refused to discharge, had gone there as a witness or as a party accused himself, in obedience to the process of the court. It seems that that was not the case. There was no necessity whatever to extend the protection to him. He Rule absolute for the discharge of the defendant from custody. Attorneys for the plaintiff Torr, Janeway, and Tagart, 38, Bedford-row, Holborn, W. C. Attorney for the defendant, Benjamin, T. W. Payne, 49, Bedford-row, Holborn, W.C. ELECTION PETITIONS. Treating — Public-house scores — Corrupt Having scores at public-houses amounts to treating. Held to be a dangerous practice, and that had any of WALLINGFORD ELECTION PETITION. The safer plan is for candidates to pay their agents | handsomely, and for the agents to provide for themselves and their clerks. The giving of a small quantity of beer or other refreshment with a corrupt intention will avoid an election; but the fact that such intention existed must be clear, and in considering whether this fact has been established, regard must be had to the extent of the supply. Where meat and drink are given away for the purpose of gaining popularity, and thereby to affect the election, that is evidence of corrupt motives. Seven voters went the day before the polling to the house of an agent of the respondent to obtain instructions. The agent was from home, but, at their suggestion, the servant permitted them to pass the night in the kitchen, and his wife and daughter supplied them with a small quantity of beer and tobacco, and the next morning gave them a breakfast. During the evening the respondent entered the kitchen and stumbled over them, as they lay asleep, but told them not to disturb themselves. They had all previously promised to vote for the respondent: Held, not to be treating within the meaning of the statute. The respondent went to look at some workmen to see how they were getting on, and, without knowing them to be voters, gave them three shillings: Held, that this was not a corrupt payment. rode outside at the time. He thought Mr. Deacon was a lawyer. He knew him before. They merely went to Mr. understood such things and the proper person to ask. He went to Mr. Stanley Vickers's lawyer a month before With reference to this matter Ballantine, Serjt informed the court that Mr. Deacon, was a highly respectable gentleman, and had been for some forty years a confidential clerk to a solicitors' firm in the place, and was thoroughly well known. The poorer classes had always found in him a friend, and whenever any assistance was needed, which should scarcely find its way into a solicitor's books, he had given it, and his name was regarded with the utmost possible respect. And there was no doubt whatever that from that very influence he was considered a person of great value in relation to the election. These persons, two of whom were tenants of Mr. Deacon's, had been canvassed upon a former occasion. They were persons of the humblest possible walk of life, and persons no doubt upon whom influence might be used. Mr. Deacon was The rule as to agency laid down by Martin, B., in the not at home on the night they went to his house. Norwich petition, ante p. 615, approved. Circumstances of treating at public-houses sufficient, if done by permission of the respondent or his agent, avoid the election. to The petition in this case contained the ordinary allegations, but the only one which proved important was that of treating. Poland, Merewether, and Casswell for the petitioner. Ballantine, Serjt., Francis, and Montagu Williams for the respondent. The principal evidence of treating was given by Meshac Swadling, who was corroborated. The Mr. Deacon referred to was an admitted agent of the respondent. Swadling said: The night before the election he went to Mr. Deacon's to ask him about the arrangement for voting on the following day. He saw a servant, but he could not say his name, neither could he remember the time. Others went with him named Clarke, Gardner, Warwick, Steel, Sadler, and James Freeman. They all lived in the same locality Union-terrace, Blue Mountain. They met in the street, but not by arrangement. When they found that Mr. Deacon was from home, they went into the kitchen, where they waited till he came home. Warwick and Steel went back to Blue Mountain, while they stayed and had a bit of cold meat and beer; a servant of Mr. Deacon's brought the meat; he did not know his name. Some tobacco was put on the table, he could not say by whom. Pipes and all were on the table when they went into the kitchen. Mr. Deacon came to them to the kitchen, but he could not say what time it was, for he was asleep. He was told by one of his mates that he came in and also Mr. Stanley Vickers, but he did not see them. Witness went asleep on the floor on the bricks. All of them stayed in the kitchen all night. Warwick and Steel went home in the night and returned. Steel went home in the night to do his horses, and returned the same night. They all had breakfast there-toast and coffee. They left between seven and eight in a close carriage and pair. The carriage was brought up to the door and ready to take them to Brightwell to poll. Six of them rode inside, Gardner outside. Mr. Deacon sat by the side of Gardner. He did not smoke on the way to the poll. When they got to the place of polling they all polled for Vickers and returned home. They had something to drink at Brightwell, in a beershop kept by William White. They had a pot or two between them. outside the beerhouse when they had it. Nobody paid for the beer while he was present. He did not pay for it, nor did he see any of the others do so. When they left the house they saw Mr. Deacon in the street. They all reentered the carriage and were driven home. Mr. Deacon Mr. Deacon was They met the servant, and it having been arranged that they should go to the poll the following morning, it was proposed by them, and the servant made no objection, that they should take up their abode in the house during the night. The ladies of the house, Mrs. Deacon and her daughter, were at home, and it was by the order of Mrs. Deacon that something was given to them in the kitchen before retiring to rest, and breakfast in the morning. Ballantine, Serjt., in opening the defence, expressed his confidence that his Lordship would not consider the entertainment of the "Seven Sleepers" treating. [BLACKBURN, J.-I quite agree with other judges who have said that if a single thimbleful of liquor is given for the purpose of corrupting a voter the election is null and void. The question as regards these men is whether they were given provisions in the kitchen with a corrupt intention.] I fully concur with your Lordship's view upon the subject. My reason for dealing with this case by itself is that the circumstances surrounding it stood alone. They are different to any other circumstances alleged, and I cannot help thinking that Mr. Deacon, although an agent to Mr. Vickers, had no responsibility in the matter, and the real question which brings me to an important matter in this case is whether there is such an amount of treating within the terms of the Act of Parliament as to satisfy your Lordship it has carried the election. There are two sections of the Act of Parliament, to which I wish to call your attention, the 4th and the 23rd. I have looked at the 23rd section with a great deal of care, and drawn from it my conclusions. It declares that to give or cause to be given on the day of nomination any meat or drink, or entertainment, to a voter, &c. I apprehend the meaning of that is to prevent the giving of any provision or entertainment to a voter on account of any trouble he might have been put to in recording his vote. A penalty of only 40s. is attached to the offence in question, and it does not invalidate an election. At the same time it creates a particular offence, and is not a bad illustration of the mode in which section 4 is to be dealt with. I have hardly more to do than to repeat what your Lordship has said. The word "corrupt" is used in WALLINGFORD ELECTION PETITION. two parts of that section. It was contended at Bradford by Baron Martin, that corruption was something more than wilful, but that I apprehend can hardly be supported. Then come the words after-providing meat and so forth in order to be elected, or for being elected, or for the purpose of corruptly influencing such person. [BLACKBURN, J. -It is necessary to prove that there was a corrupt intention. If entertainment is given to such an extent as to prove that it was given in order to influence the election, then it would be treating, and would come within the statute.] I quite agree with your Lordship's views. I shall first of all consider a single case, and I think it is a fair mode of dealing with the subject. Suppose, for instance, a man said to a voter, "If you vote for me here is a glass of wine for you." That would come within the words and meaning of the section. I perfectly agree with your Lordship that an act of this sort would constitute a bribe, because there may be a small as well as a large bribe. With regard to what has been called general treating, I venture to think that the legal mode of dealing with it is this: Every man is responsible for the natural consequences of his own acts, or that which his own acts are likely to create, and therefore if he sanctions a large amount of general treating, inasmuch as the common effect of that would be to influence the election, he is responsible, although he does not intend it should have that effect. If I have arrived at the right conclusion, the ground is clear for the discussion of this subject. One further remark is necessary as regards agency. [BLACKBURN, J.-As regards agency it has been clearly laid down that an election is void where an agent, even contrary to the wish of his employer, has been guilty of a corrupt act, provided such an act was sufficiently connected with his agency as to render the member answerable.] Mr. Vickers, the respondent, denied, in the most explicit way, that he had sanctioned or was aware of any corrupt act having been committed on his behalf in connection with the election. In his reexamination he said he recollected having given 3s. to a man who was probably a witness named Kemp. He was told that the men with whom Kemp was were not voters, and he put his hand into his pocket and handed them the amount named to get something, as it was a cold morning, and they asked him to treat them. The giving that 3s. had nothing whatever to do with the election. Mr. Child, of the firm of Child and Son, Victoriastreet, Westminster, corroborated the evidence of Mr. Vickers as to his having given strict instructions that the canvass on his behalf should be conducted on principles of entire purity. He added that he had warned the landlords of the George and the Town Arms Inns against giving away beer or anything else on Mr. Vickers's account, and that the landlord of the Crown and other public-houses at Benson had received similar warning. Mr. Dodd said that he had been on several occasions called upon to give beer away, but that he invariably declined to do so. He pointed out in more than one instance to the landlords of public-houses that if they did supply beer gratis to people they must not expect to be paid for it by Mr. Vickers. Mr. Deacon, in reference to the case of the seven voters said there was not the slightest necessity for trying to influence them in any way, because they had all along before promised to vote for Mr. Vickers. The public-house treating by partisans is sufficiently dealt with in the judgment. BLACKBURN, J., passing over the allegation of bribery, said that the important question was whether there was sufficient proof of treating, and he had experienced great difficulty in considering this point. It was not a case in which there could be any doubt, nor was it a case in which there was no evidence. There was evidence to be seriously considered, but was there sufficient to void the election? Was the meat or drink given away for the purpose of producing an effect upon the electors? He thought that where the intention was to gain popularity, and thereby affect the election, then there was evidence of corrupt motives. But when one came to look at the question of intention, it was necessary to consider the amount and quantity of drink or provision. It was true that the statute did not make allowance for quantity. The smallest quantity of drink-and Justice Willes had said that a single thimbleful of drink-given away with a corrupt intention, was sufficient to avoid the election, but when the question was considered as a matter of fact as to whether the intention existed, it was necessary to consider to what extent it was done. He agreed that the mere giving of a thimbleful of drink for the purpose of influencing the election was an infringement of the statute, but the question as to whether it was given for the purpose of influ encing the election ought to be clear, and the ground on which he had based his consideration was as to the quantity of liquor distributed. Mr. Merewether had said a good deal about the seven men. These men, it had been arranged, were to go to poll early on the morning of the election. They reached Mr. Deacon's house the night before, and the servants consented to their staying all night in the kitchen. Whilst they were there Mrs. Deacon supplied them with pipes and tobacco and a small quantity of drink, and the next morning gave them a breakfast. Mr. Vickers went into the kitchen and stumbled over the men, who were asleep there, and remarked that they need not disturb themselves. Mr. Merewether was quite correct in saying that this entertainment was given to these seven men because they were about to vote at the election. He could not suppose that these seven men would have been invited to sit in the kitchen had they intended to vote for the opposite side, but considering the degree and manner in which it was done, he could not draw the conclusion that this was an act of treating within the meaning of the statute. The same sort of remarks would apply to the 3s. which had been given by Mr. Vickers to the workmen. It appeared that he only went to the place where the men were at work to see how they were getting on. But then came what was much more important in this case-What was the extent of the treating in the public-houses? On that he had considerable difficulty and hesitation. The manner in which the evidence was adduced made it a very difficult matter to decide on this question. He thought upon the evidence brought forward by the petitioner, there was quite sufficient to void the election had it not been contradicted. At the White Hart, Benson, there was sufficient drink given away to justify him in coming to the conclusion that those who gave it away thought to obtain popularity in the village, and there was some evidence, though much slighter, of beer being given away at the Star. There was distinct evidence of beer being given away at the Horse and Harrow and at the Sweet Home, and also that people went to these houses expecting liquor would be given them. It certainly did seem to him that drink had been given away at Benson to such an extent that if given by the respondent's or his agent's permission it would have been sufficient to nullify the election. The White Hart was the house where Mr. Vickers had a committee-room. The White Hart was, it appeared, kept by a man named Dearlove, and a lump sum of 207. 15s. was paid to him. Dearlove was called as a witness, and seemed to endeavour to keep back the LICHFIELD ELECTION PETITION. truth. Doubtless upon this it appeared that he knew something, and the account looked as if it had been passed simply because it was sent in. Had the account Dearlove sent in contained charges of beer given away to the extent the evidence showed, he should certainly have thought it sufficient to prove treating. Then in the town of Wallingford, evidence was given respecting beer being distributed at the Town Arms, but it was very slight and not reliable. At the George it was shown that a lunch was laid out costing 41. 10s., of which it was clear many voters partook, although it was said to have been intended for poll clerks and others engaged in the election. Unquestionably he should have thought this amounted to treating had it not been satisfactorily explained. Mr. Serjt. Ballantine had first called Mr. Vickers and his agents to establish as far as possible that they had discouraged treating. Now, it was positively sworn by the agents that they took great care to prevent treating, and that if it was done they would not pay for it. The man Belcher, who had been mentioned as treating some men to beer at Benson, had been shown to be no agent for the sitting member, and he himself had sworn that he gave away the beer more for the sake of conviviality than for election purposes. He admitted that he spent 27. in beer as a treat to the villagers, taking the money from his own pocket, and never expecting to be repaid by Mr. Vickers or anyone else. Mr. Weller, who was in much the same position as Mr. Belcher, though no doubt a friend to the cause of Mr. Vickers, spent 27. more in drink. Neither Mr. Weller nor Mr. Belcher were agents of Mr. Vickers, and that being so, that gentleman would not be answerable. It had been stated that Mr. Dearlove had been distinctly told not to advance drink on speculation, and when he sent in his bill for 15. the agents of the sitting member refused to pay but 5. of it, a sum which they thought reasonable for legitimate purposes. This brought the question to a considerably difficult point. He should observe that the large bill contracted by Mr. Vickers' agents at the George was accounted for by the fact that the sitting member brought down from London Mr. Child and several of his clerks, besides a number of Mr. Vickers's friends who stopped there, although he could not help observing that the living they indulged in whilst there was somewhat extravagant. Had these people been voters it might be open to the suspicion that it was only a cloak fer bribery, but they were not. The other case was of a still more serious nature, namely, of public-houses supplying beer which they never hoped to get paid for. A man called for the petitioner's case had done this, and his bill was rejected. Mr. Newton, a large farmer, gave fifty or sixty of his labourers a large quantity of beer, merely because they were his workmen. In this case Mr. Vickers's refusal to pay was bona fide. Then, again, both at the White Hart and at the Crown there was an entire absence of evidence to prove treating. It however was really true that the sitting member had imperilled his seat, and had brought on a petition in consequence of his having a score at public-houses. He himself would have it laid down as a principle that having a score" at a public-house amounted to treating, and as a matter of prudence he would candidly advise all members to have no score at all. Let the member pay his agents handsomely, let them pay others, and let everyone find himself in refreshments. Then the candidate's seat could not be imperilled. In this case Mr. Vickers's seat was imperilled very considerably. But he came to the conclusion that Mr. Vickers neither by his own acts nor those of his agents had done anything in the shape of giving any meat and drink with the intention of influ 66 encing the election. His Lordship accordingly declared that Mr. Vickers was duly elected. Agents for the petitioner, Messrs. Fladgate, Clarke, and Finch, 40, Craven-street, Strand. Agents for the respondent, Messrs. Child and Son, 53, Victoria-street, Westminster. LICHFIELD ELECTION PETITION. Jan. 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29, 1869. Bribery at common law-Treating-Paying travelling expenses of person not entitled to vote-InfluenceWhen exercise of illegal-Suspicion-Inferential evidence-Promises. In order to prove treating it must be shown, not only that eating and drinking went on during the election, but that it went on under the eyes of the candidate. Eating and drinking must always go on; but it must be shown that the meat and drink were supplied at the expense or upon the credit of the candidate, either by his own authority or by the authority of one or more of his agents. Bribery at common law, equally as by Act of Parlia ment, would avoid an election where it took place. If there were general bribery, no matter from what fund no matter from what person, and though the sitting member might have nothing to do with it, it would defeat an election, because it would show that the election was not a proceeding pure and free as an election ought to be, but that it was vitiated and corrupted by an influence which, no matter from what quarter it came, had avoided the return and shown it to be abortive. If, however, the bribery be short of general bribery it is not enough to show that a stranger to the member or his agents bribed one or more persons. The Act 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, c. 36, must be construed by the light of the common law, and must be read as meaning agents authorised in the conduct of the election to canvass, and not merely agents authorised to bribe. And were there any doubt on the subject it would be entirely removed by sect. 43 of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125. It The law (reading the above sections together) is clear that a single act of bribery proved either against a member or against an agent engaged in the conduct of an election, will have the effect of defeating that election. The law cannot strike at the existence of influence. is the abuse of influence with which alone the law can deal; and influence cannot be said to be abused because it exists, and because it is known to exist and operate. A promise given on the condition of voting would be an abuse of influence and a bribe; and there must be as good evidence of that promise illegally made as would be required if the promise were a legal one to sustain an action for breach of the promise. Where, therefore, A., the solicitor of the respondent had an interest in a hospital, and B., an aged voter, wished to be admitted there, and a conversation took place at which A. stated that he wanted B. to vote for the respondent, and B. stated that he wanted to get into the hospital, and B. did vote for the respondent: Held, that the conversation was nothing more than putting into words what each party knew before, and that there was no corrupt promise, but a simple exercise of legitimate influence. S. was one of the respondent's agents. B. had been in his service, but had left it some time before the election. B. was anxious to get back into S.'s employment, and this anxiety existed at the time of the election, LICHFIELD ELECTION PETITION. when he voted for the respondent. After the election he returned to S.'s employment. One A. saw B. before the election, and represented how desirable it would be for him to get back into S.'s employment; but it was denied that he acted with the knowledge or sanction of S.: Held, that the court could not act upon suspicion, and the act of A. not being traced home to an agent of the respondent could not defeat his election. If a voter does not vote for the respondent who is alleged to have influenced him, that is evidence that the voter was not influenced. A sum of 9s. 6d. was sent to a voter who was not entitled to vote at the election by reason of nonresidence. It was alleged that this money was sent by an agent of the respondent, and certain letters were shown to have passed between S., the respondent's agent, and the voter, referring to the payment of the voter's expenses. The voter subsequently voted the other way: Held, upon the construction of the letters, that there was not a promise to pay the expenses, and that there was no proof that the 9s. 6d. had been sent by an agent of the respondent; but that, had it been otherwise, the bribe would have been equally a bribe for the purpose of defeating the election, notwithstanding the voter voted the other way, and notwithstanding he had no right to vote at all, by reason of non-residence: Held, also, that the court would not be justified in accepting inferential evidence to trace the payment to the sitting member, so as to avoid the election. The case of Cooper v. Slade, and the present law relating to the conveyance of voters to the poll explained. This was a petition against the return of Col. Dyott, and alleged bribery, treating, and undue influence. Five persons only were objected to on the ground of corrupt practices; four were objected to for being non-resident; and one for receiving parochial relief. Major Anson was the unsuccessful candidate. Cross-examined: No one suggested that I should go to Barlow. I did not ask him whether Col. Dyott had promised him a place. This interview took place more than a month ago. I went to ask him to go over to Longdon, about four miles distant, for some money which I have to receive. We had some conversation, and he volunteered this statement. To this Col. Dyott deposed in reply: I and Mr. Greene went to canvass Barlow. He expressed his wish to get into the hospital. I made no reply. Mr. Greene made no reply, beyond saying it was natural he should wish to do so. Neither I nor Mr. Greene promised to get him a place in the hospital, or held out any hope of being able to do so. I never made such a promise. I have no influence in the appointment of persons to the hospital, By Mr. Powell: I saw Barlow a second time. Mr. Coxon was with me. He said nothing about the hospital then. The Rev. Mr. I am a solicitor practising in this city. I was agent for Col. Dyott at the last election. I know of no corrupt practices committed on his part during the contest. I have heard suggestions by Col. Dyott and other persons to the effect that the adoption of corrupt practices would not suit his book-his position was much too good. By Mr. Powell: I am the attorney for the hospital, acting for the Rev. Mr. Dod, the master. I receive the rents. I have known Barlow since I was a boy. I think he complained that the other side would not do anything for him." I said, “Well, Barlow, I dare say." I believed him. On the subject of the payment of travelling expenses the following evidence was given:Samuel White proved that in October he was living at Stafford, when he received a letter from Mr. Symonds, asking him to vote for Col. Dyott. He replied to that letter. Powell said Mr. Symonds had been subpoenaed to produce this reply. Mr. Symonds having been sworn, said he received a reply, and sent it to the committee-room, and had he asked for it, but was told it could not be found. not seen it since. When he received the subpoena Powell, Q. C. and Macnamara appeared for the dence of its contents, and the witness said that on petitioner. Before the last election Col. Dyott and Mr. Wm. Greene called upon me to canvass me. I complained that although Powell was then permitted to give secondary evithe Monday before the polling-day he received 9s. 6d. in postage stamps for his expenses from Stafford. It was accompanied by a letter from Symonds, stating, "You are quite sufficiently paid for your vote." The fare each way, third class, was 1s. 4 d. He voted for Major Anson, and gave the stamps to his wife. Levi Ball, shoemaker, corroborated the last witness as to the letter he received from Symonds, and to these words in it: "As you have now been paid enough to vote, this is to inform you that the poll Mr. Symonds said: I voted for Major Anson at the previous election, his partying day is not till Wednesday." Thomas Walmslsey deposed: I voted at the last election for Major Anson. About the first week in November I asked the last witness, Barlow, to vote for Major Anson, but he said he did not know that he should, as the Liberal party had behaved very ill to him; and as he was getting an old man he wanted to do something for himself. He said he thought he should vote for the other party. I asked him on what grounds? He said Col. Dyott had promised to give him a place in the hospital. In November Barlow told me that Col. Dyott had promised to get him a place in the hospital. Daniel Mynard deposed: I am superintendent of the police for the city. Barlow has told me that Col. Dyott promised to get him a place in the hospital, and that Mr. Greene also promised to take care that he should have a place. worked for me. I wrote the letter produced to him on the Samuel White, the man who has been examined, formerly 19th Oct. I had a reply. I wrote to White saying the election would be on the 16th or 17th Nov. Before the election I asked Mr. Greene about the legality of travelling expenses. Mr. Greene said all travelling expenses were illegal. WILLES, J. Very good law. I wrote to White a second time, telling him that the polling day was altered to the 18th. I told him he could get his card at Mr. Greene's, and could take a return ticket at Stafford. I most solemnly swear that I sent him no expenses in any form. I did not say in the letter, "Now you are sufficiently paid; I inform you that the polling day is on Wednesday.' I sent him no money or postage stamps, nor do I know of any being sent. I am not aware of any corrupt practices at the election, and believe there were none. Mr. Greene recalled: I have searched for the letters sent to me by Mr. Symonds, but have not been able to find them. Mr. Symonds came to me and asked me about the expenses. I cannot say whether or not I read a letter from White. |