The Megantic Election Case

LOUIS ISRAEL COTE alias FRE- J APPELLANT; , CHETTE................... ...............

* Mar.15,16. April 1st. .......... RESPONDENTS. ON APPEAL FR-OM PLAMONDON, J., SITTING FOR THE TRIAL OF THE MEGANTIC CONTROVERTED ELECTION CASE. At the trial of the petition, the returning officer, who was also the registrar of the county of Megantic, and secretary of the municipality of Inverness, was called as a witness, and produced in court in his official capacity the original list of electors for the township of Inverness, and provedthat the name L. one of the petitioners whom he personally knew, was on the list. The original document was retained by the witness, and, as neither of the parties requested that the list should be filed, the judge made no order to that effect. The stat's of the other petitioners was proved in the same way.

Held, that there was sufficient evidence that the petitioners were persons who had a right to vote at the election to which the petition related under 37 Vic., ch. 10, sec. 7 (D).

The shorthand notes of the shorthand writer employed by the court o to take down the evidence were not extended in his handwriting, but were signed by him.

fBeld, that the notes of evidence could not be objected to. Before setting out on a canvassing tour, the appellant, the sitting member, placed in the hands of one B., who was not his financial agent, $100 to be used for the purposes of the election. While visiting a part of the county with which the appellant was not much acquainted, but with which B. was well acquainted, they paid an electioneering visit to one K., a leading man in that locality, who indicated to B. his dissatisfaction with the candidate of his party, and stated that, although he would vote for the liberal party, he would not exert himself as much as in the former elections.

The appellant then went outside, and B. asked his host, "Do you want any money for your church?" And having received a negative reply, added, " Do you want any *PRESENT.-Sir Wm.

money for anything?"

K. then answered, "If you have any Ms No money to spare there is plenty of things we want it for. We are building a town hall, and we are scarce of money." B. then said, "1 Will $25 do? " K. answered, " Whatever you like, it is nothing to me." The money was left on the table. Then, when bidding the appellant B. good-bye, K. said, " Gentlemen, remember that this money has no influence as far as I am concerned with regard to the election." The appellant did not at the time, nor at any subsequent time, repudiate the act of B. This amount of was not included in any account rendered by the appellant or his financial agent, and large sums were admittedly corruptly expended in the election by the agent of the appellant.

Held, affirming the judgment of the court below, that the giving of the $25 by B. to K. was not an act of liberality or charity, but a gift out of the appellant's money, with a view to influence a voter favourably to the appellant's candidature, and that, although the money was not given in the appellant's presence, yet it was given with his knowledge, and therefore that the appellant had been personally guilty of a corrupt practice. APPEAL from the judgment of Plamondon, J., in the Controverted Election for the county of Megantic. The petition of the said respondents contained the usual charges of bribery, corrupt practices, &c., by the appellant personally, and by his agents.

By the judgment of Plamondon, J., the appellant was found guilty on both sets of charges.

On the present appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the judgment of the court below on the charge of personal corruption, known as the James Kinnear case.

The facts of this case, and the evidence relied on, appear in the judgments hereinafter given.

RITCHIE, C. J.

The first objection is that petitioners were not candidates and have not legally proved that they were electors having the right to vote at the election to which the petition herein relates, nor have they proved that ElETIn those persons are electors, whom the defendant and RitchieC.J. his pretended agents were accused of having bribed. The Controverted Elections Act (37 Vic., cap. 10, sec. 7) prescribed that the election of a member may be contested by " a person who had a right to vote at t)ie election to which the petition relates."

Of this and other objections not touching the merits of the case, the learned Judge thus disposes in his judgment:- M. William I. Lambly, r6gistrateur du comtM de fdgantic et secr~taire de la municipalit6 d'Inverness, et qui avait agi comme officier-rapporteur A la dite 6lection, a comparu en ces dites qualities. II a prouvb le bref d'6lection eii vertu duquel il a agi, aussi la nomination de candidats et le rapport par lui de P'lection du d~fendeur.

II a exhib6 en ses susdites qualit6s officielles, 1 la liste 6lectorale originale pour le canton d'Inverness et il a prouv6 que le nom de Laughlan McOurdy 6tait sur cette liste, en ouvrant la dite liste et montrant que ce nom y 6tait ins~r6 avec ses qualifications comme blecteur.

a d~clar6, de plus, connaitre personnellement cOurdy, l'un des requrants, depuis vingt ans.

Ces listes sont faites en duplicata; les deux sont 6galement des originaux; c'est sur le duplicata original du secr6taire qu'il a donn6 sa d6position relativement A AecGurdy.

II h6sitait A produire cette liste au dossier, mais il est prat A le faire si la cour Fordonne. Nie l'un ni Plautre des parties ne P'ayant exig6, la cour n'a pas 60 appelke A donner et n'a pas donn6 cet ordre. M. Lambly a exhib6 en deuxiame lieu la liste 6lectorale de Somerset-Nord. O'est un original,. dit-il, et on lappelle un double duplicata.

Au moyen de cette liste, ainsi exhib6e en cour, il prouve les qualifications d'6lecteur des deux autres requ6rants Jacques Goulet, ferblantier et locataire, Se lot, 8e rang, et Louis Richard, charron et locataire, 8e lot, 6e rang.

connait personnellement Louis Richard.

Les deux listes qu'il vient d'exhiber sont celles-lA mames qui ont servi lors de P1'lection dont il s'agit.

Elles sont soumises A lFinspection de la cour et des parties. Le tbmoin est prat A placer an dossiqr la deuxibme s'il en regoit ordre de la cour.

Pour la mame raison que ci-dessus, cet ordre n'a pas 6t6 donn6.

Les objections faites par le d6fendeur A cette preuve A l'enquite, ' et r6serv6es pour adjudication au m&rite, ne sont pas fond~es et elles sont renvoybes.

La preuve de la qualit6 des requ6rants est complte par le timoi. Ri t

,C.gnage du docteur Larose.

,

Les requ6rants ont prouv6 16galement, de mime, la qualit6 d'61ecteurs des personnes qu'ils ont prouv6 avoir t6 corrompues A la dite 6lection. La motion du d6fendeur prsentke le 5 septembre dernier, A 1'effet de faire rejeter du dossier toute Ia preuve ci-dessus, n'est pas fond6e et elle est renvoy6e.

La cour rejette 6galement une autre motion des d6fendeurs, pr&sent6e A l'audition, demandant le rejet de 'enqu&te des requ6rants, prise avant le 22 janvier 1883, alors que le dossier 6tait hors de cour. La cour a dj& afflrm6, par un jugement interlocutoire, la 16galit6 de cette enquate.

Le d6fendeur a pr6sent6 A l'audition une troisibme motion, demandant le rejet de toute 'enquate des requbrants, parce que les st~no. graphes n'auraient pas, eux mimes, copi6 les d6positions prises par eux, et parce que ces depositions fourmillent de fausset6s.

La cour rejette cette motion, 10 parce qu'il n'y a pas de preuve A l'appui, 20 parce que ces d6po3itions sont certifibes par qui de droit et dans la forme ordinaire et voulue.

I think the learned Judge was entirely right in the manner he thus treated these objections.

It is freely and fully admitted that the Judge was right in deciding that the election must be avoided for corrupt practices by the agents of the defendants, and the only questions submitted for our consideration are the corrupt acts attributed to the defendant personally, and which the learned Judge found the evidence established against the appellant.

The first case is that of the alleged bribery of one James Kinnear. The learned Judge thus states his view of this case :- Ifler Cas personnel de corruption.-Pendant le cours de la cabale 6lectorale, un jour ou deux avant le jour de la nomination, le d6fendeur est parti en voiture, de Somerset, avec Jean Charles Beaudette, pour aller travailler ensemble A l'election.

Ce monsieur Reaudette est Pami intime, le partisan du d6fendeur, et il est difficile A pr6tendre qu'il n'6tait pas autoris6 par le d6fendeur A agir pour lui.

Avant le d~part de Somerset le d6fendeur mit entre les mains de Beaudette une somme de $100.00, pour les besoins de l'election. Ils M T se rendaient A Saint-Pierre de Broughton. L'objet de leur voyage 6tait d'aller voir les personnes influentes our leur route, pour les int~resser en faveur de la candidature du d6fendeur.- Rite Chemin faisant its s'arrtent A Leeds, chez un homme trbs influent z1e la localit6, M. James Kinnear; M. Kinn ear est un lib6ral. I e difendeur ne l'avait jamais ni vu ni connu; mais Beaudette avait eu quelquefois l'occasion de le visiter en qualit6 de commis voyageur. Une fois entrbs, tout naturellement il est question de Plection. Kinnear dit au d6fendeur: ' Je n'aine pas le Docteur Olivier; si vous 6tiez lib&ral je voterais pour vous au lieu d'Olivier; mais s'il nen vient pas d'autres je voterai pour Olivier.'"

Le d6fendeur admet, dans son t6moignage, qu'il est entr6 chez Kinnear parce qu'il savait que ce dernier n'aimait pas le Docteur Olivier.

On prend des rafraichissements poliment offerts par Kinnear et tout en causant le dMfendeur s'informe de l'6tat de P'opinion relativement A l'6lection. Kinnear lui r~pond que les gens li sont en presque totalit6 des lib6raux, mais que le Dr Olivier n'est pas aimb dans Leeds et que, quant A lui, il est dispos6 A ne pas faire grand'chose pour lui, qu'il voterait pour son parti mais qu'il ne travaillerait pas beaucoup.

La dessus le d6fendeur sort, sous le pr6texte d'aller voir A son cheval.

Restk seul avec Kinnear, Beaudette lui dit. " Avez-vous besoin de quelqu'argent pour votre 6glise? " "Non, r6pond Kinnear, Dieu merci, notre chapelle n'est pas en dette, et je n'ai pas besoin d'argent pour elle."

Refus6 mais non rebut6, Beaudette revient A la charge. " Mais, dit-il, vous devez avoir tout de mime besoin d'argent pour une chose ou pour une autre." Kinnear lui r6pond: " Si vous avez de 'argent de trop, nous pouvons P'appliquer A bien des choses ici, par exemple, nous voulons bbtir un town-hall et nous sommes A court d'argent pour le faire."

Beaudette r6pond: "Vingt-cinq piastres 9a fera-t-il ? " Kinnear dit: 'N'importe ce que vous voudrez, c'est pareil pour moi." LA-dessus Beaudette d6pose $25.00 sur la table du salon. Le d6fendeur, sur cette entrefaite, rentre au salon; l'on se dit bonjour et Flon part.

Dans son examen, le dffendeur pitend que Beaudetle ne lui a fait part de ce don d'argent que deux ou trois jours aprbs, et qu'il n'en a pas entendu parlerauparavant.

Mais, outre linvraisemblance de cette pr6tention, comment la concilier le fait qu'avant leur d6part et pendant qu'on 6changeait des bonjours, Kinnear leur dit A -* tous deux: " Gentlemen, remember that this money has no influence 11EGANTIC as far as I am concerned, with regard to the election. I vote for Dr. Olivier, he has got my support, but I am not going to exert my- Rite C.J.self canvassing among people, as I formerly did."

Le d6fendeur savait done alors et I qu'une somme d'argent avait 6t d6pos6e par Beaudette, et cet argent 6tait celui du d6fendeur. I n'a ni alors ni subs6quemment r6pudi6 cet acte au contraire, il a continu6, avec Beaudctte, sa tourn6e 6lectorale, et Beaudette a A sa connaissance travaill6 pour lui jusqu'A la fin de la lutte. II a done sanctionn6 1'acte de corruption de Beaudette.

Ce cas si clairement prouv6 de corruption et tentative de corruption serait suffisant a lui seul pour faire annuler 1'6lection et pour faire d6clarer que le d6fendeur s'est personnellement rendu coupable do manceuvres frauduleuses au cours de sa dite 61ection. Before setting out on this Election expedition without the instrumentality of a financial agent, the appellant places in the hands of Beaudet $100 to be used for the purposes of the election; of this there can be no doubt, COd's evidence is clear and conclusive on this point, notwithstanding what Beaudet says:-Cdte"s language is as follows:- Q. Je vous demande si A part de vos d6penses personnelles vous avez d6pens6 d'autre argent?-J'ai pay6 de l'argent & Beaudet et A Jean Charles Beaudet.

Q. Beaudet 6tait-il un de vos agents ?-Non.

Q. Combien d'argent avez-vous donn6 A Jean Charles Beaudel ?- R. A peu prbs cent soixante-quinze ($175.90) A deux cent vingt-cinq ($225) piastres pendant la lutte.

Q. Vous lui avez donn6 cola [pour les fins de 1'61ection?-R. En diff6rents temps; je ne me rappelle pas exactement le montant, c'est peut-8tre moins et peut-6tre plus.

Q. Etiez-vous Beaudet cette fois-lA ?-R. Oui, la premire fois que je suis mont6, j'y ai Wt rien qu'une fois.

Q. Vous 6tiez avec Beaudet Y-R. Oui.

Q. Le m~me M. Beauded auquel vous avez donn6 deux cent vingtcinq piastres ($225.00) ?-R. Deux cent vingt-cinq ($225.00), ou cent soixante et quinze ($175.00) je ne me rappelle pas bien.

Beaudet was perfectly familiar with the part of the country they visited on this occasion, but with which appellant was not much acquainted; Beaudet was also well acquainted with Kinnear while Frechette was a perfect stranger to him at the time of the visit.

As to Frechette's pretence that he called on Kinnear simply because he was a trader and not because of the election, he is expressly contradicted by himself and by Beaudet. He says:- Q.

je Beaudet says:

Can any one doubt that this was an an electioneering and not a merely friendly social visit which Frechette, though unacquainted with Kinnear, being a trader himself, considered he was owing Kinnear, he being also a trader. Had it been such a visit is it consistent with common sense within the ordinary experience of life, I may even say, with human nature, that such a visit to an utter stranger as Frechette was to Kinnear, that his companion, Mr. Beaudet, a commercial traveller, who, as such, it would seem, often called at Kinnear's place, should wholly apart from the election, or any influence it was to have on the election, exhibit such reckless anxiety to get rid of, not his. own, but Frechetle's money, dispensing it without the consent and approval of Frechette and contrary to the purpose for which the money was given him, and without the slightest solicitation for, or even intimation, direct or indirect, that there was any object whatever then present to his mind for which his liberality was needed or would be appreciated.

Was it ever heard of that a business man, such as Beaudet, in a place with which he was unconnected, except to get money by the sale of goods, not to dispense it gratuitously, on a social visit, nothing in the conversation tending to such a arpl question, should abruptly ask his host, " Do you want any money for your church?" and having received the reply, " No, thank God, our church is free from debt, I " don't want any money for it," and not content with this rebuff should again ask " Do you not want any " money for anything This, on the idea of its having innocently occurred on a social visit, would be incomprehensible.

But viewed in the light of the candidature of his companion Frechette, and of his having $100 of Frechette's money in his pocket to be used for election purposes, and of the conversation with Kinnear immediately preceding the offer in which Kinnear indicated so clearly his dissatisfaction with the candidature of Mr. Olivier and the fact that though he would vote for the Liberal party he would not exert himself as much as in former elections, it is entirely intelligible. Can any one doubt that knowing the state Kinnear's mind had been in, in reference to Mr. Olivier, Frechete and Beaudet called, and that, finding him still in the same state of mind, which Kinnear in no way disguised, these $25 were left on Kinnear's table to influence, favorably to Frechette, Kinnear's conduct in regard to the election, and can it be doubted that Kinnear felt and knew that Beaudet intended it to' have that effect? otherwise why should he, when bidding Frechette and Beaudet good-bye say, " Gentlemen, remem- "ber that this money has no influence as far as I am "concerned with regard to the election."

Of this extraordinary transaction Beaudet, though examined as a witness in the case, gives no explanation, in fact says not one word as to the giving; all he does say is indirectly at variance with the testimony of Kinnear. I am wholly unable to look on this as an act of liberality or charity, but a gift with a view to influence Kinnear pure and simple, and I am equally unable to bring my mind to the conclusion that Frechette was ATIC not a party to the transaction, or that he was not aware that the money he supplied Beaudet was thus applied. While we must not act on mere suspicions, however strong they may be, but must be satisfied that the corrupt practice has been affirmatively established beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot expect to find in a vast majority of cases direct evidence of the fact ; in this instance it would be unreasonable to suppose that Frechette would openly and before Beaudet take out this money and offer it to Kinnear as a bribe pure and simple; eqjually unreasonable would it be to expect that Beaudet, having received money from Frechette - to be used for election purposes, would in his presence in like manner offer the bribe to this man, or that he would offer it to him as a bribe; but Frechette and he having set out with a common object, viz: to forward the election interests Frechette, in which it is clear money was to be used by Beaudet, (otherwise it would not have been furnished him at the outset by Frechette,) and having found Kinnear an influential man of opposite politics in a dissatisfied state of mind as to the candidate of his party, where could be found a more desirable subject tc operate on ? and, if to be operated on by Beaudet, the holder of the money, what more natural and significant than that Frechette should step out on pretence of looking after his horse and Beaudet thus be furnished with an opportunity? And can there be a doubt that of the opportunity thus afforded, Beaudet availed himself, feeling no doubt that though Kinnear's vote might not be changed, such liberality so freely and generously bestowed could not fail to have its good effect ? In considering cases of this kind we must bring our common sense to bear, we must not ignore our knowledge of human nature, nor must we O cast aside the experience of life, and while we must not presume guilt, we must from the facts and circum- ELCTION stances presented for our consideration arrive at the conclusions which our common sense, our knowledge Ritchie,C.J. of human nature and our experience of life naturally and without reasonable doubt fairly lead us. It is only necessary to read the evidence in this case to establish that the learned Judge could have come to no other conclusion than he did.

Cdt's account of the interview with Kinnear is as follows

Q. Vous avez t, comme vous avez dit, avec M.Beaudet en voiture, et vous avez visit6 plusieurs des 6lecteurs en cabalant avec lui ? R. Oui.

Q. Rtes-vous all 6

Leeds avec lui?-R. Oui.

Q. Ptes-vous all au moulin de Kinnear?-R. Oui.

Q. ttes-vous entr6 chez Kinnear avec lui ?-R. Oui.

Q. Avez-vous rest6 tout le temps dans la chambre avec lui quand il a parl6 & Kinnear ?-R. J'ai sorti pour voir a mon cheval, j'ai laiss6 M. Kinnear et Beaudet dans Ia salle.

Q. A-t-il t6 question avec Kinnear de vous supporter dans l'61ection, quand vous avez parl6 avec lui ?-R. Non.

Q. Lui avez-vous parl6 d'61ection ?-R. J'ai parld par rapport A la. letire qu'il avait envoyde 4 X. Piteau. M. Kinnear m'a dit: Je n'aime pas le docteur Olivier, si vous 6tiez lib6ral je voterais pour vous au lieu d'Olivier; mais s'il n'en vient pas d'autre je voterai pour Olivier.

Q. Votre entrevue avec lui n'a pas t favorable ?-R. Je savais bien que Kinnear est lib&ral; j'allais le voir comme confrdre de magasin.

Q. Vous tes entr6 li parce que vous saviez qu'il n'aimait pas le docteur Olivier?-R. Oui. Je voulais le voir. Quand on fait le tour du comt6 on va voir les princiopales gens de la place. C'6tait la premibre fois que j'allais a Leeds.

Q. A-t-il t question en votre pr6sence de bitir une halle, une salle publique dans la paroisse ?-Non.

Q. Apris que votre cheval a 6t prit Beaudet vous a rejoint ?-R. Je suis rentr6 chez Kinnear, il 6tait apris parler avec Beaudet. Q. Et Beaudet est rest6 avec vous ?-R. Oui.

Q. Beaudet vous a-t-il dit quelque chose par rapport A certaines vingt-cinq piastres ($25.00) ?-R. I m'a dit cela quelques jours apris. Q. Quand ?-R. Je crois que c'est trois ou quatre jours apr6s. Q. Qu'est-ce qu'il vous a dit ?-R. Il m's dit qu'il avait donn6 vingt-cinq piastres ($25.00) -A M. Kinnear pour lui aider & bAtir un townhall.

Q. A part des deux cent cinquante piastres que vous avez donn6es RitcieC.J. au comitS de Somerset, et des deux cent vingt-cinq piastres A Beaudet, cent soixante-quinze piastres A deux cent vingt-cinq piastres A Beaudet et A part de vos d6penses personnelles avez-vous donn6 d'autres sommes d'argent pendant I'61ection et pour 1'61ection ?-R. Pas quo je me rappelle.

Oui, j'ai donn6 cinquante piastres ($50.00) au comit6 de Sainte-Julie que j'ai envoy6es pour les d6penses 16gales, les orateurs, etc.

Q. A part vos d6penses personnelles et de 1'argent que vous avez donn6 A Beaudet, avez-vous donn6 d'autre argent pendant 1'1ection, ou depuis, pour 1'61ection?-R. A part de ce que j'ai donn6 A Beaudet, j'en ai donn6 au comit6 de Somerset.

Q. Combien?-R. Deux cent cinquante piastres ($250.00) A peu prbs, je ne puis pas dire au juste, c'est pour payer les d6penses du comit6, j'ai donn6 environ deux cent cinquante piastres, deux cents A deux cent cinquante piastres, j'ai donn6 en diffirents temps. Q. Qu'avez-vous dit ? - R. Peut-6tre ce n'est pas bien. It dit, j'ai donn6 9a, ce n'est pas du tout pour l'61ection, c'est pour btir un townhall.

Q. Et vous 6tiez satisfait ?-R. Je n'6tais pas pour les retirer. Co n'est pas moi qui ai donn6 1'argent.

Q. C'6tait votre argent?-R. Je ne sais pas.

Q. Vous avez donn6 quelle somme d'argent & Beaudet?-R. J'ai donn6 neuf cents piastres ($90J.00) en partant de Somerset et la balance en diff6rents temps jusqu'au montant de cent soixante-quinze piastres ($175.00) A deux cent vingt-cinq piastres ($225.00). Q. A-t-il rendu compte de cela ?-R. Non.

Q. Vous ne lui avez pas demand6 non plus?-Non.

Beaudet's account of what took place at Kinnear's is as follows :- .

Q. Vous Ates, si je ne me trompe pas, commis voyageur, c'est-Adire que vous vendez A commission pour des marchands de gros de Montrdal, et cela depuis de nombreuses ann6es ?-R. Oui, depuis dix-sept aus.

Q. Et durant ce temps-lA avez-vous eu occasion de faire connaissance avec M. James Kinnear ? - R. Oui, je le connais depuis nombre d'ann6es, et je suis ie voir.

Q. Durant la dernibre 61ection vous 6tes entr6 chez lui avec le d6fendeur M. Frdchette ?-R. Oui.

289, Q. vous dites que dans ce temps-lA il y avait bien des ann60s que vous faisiez des affaires comme commis voyageur et que vous eh MEGANTIO aviez fait beaucoup avec lui ?-R. Oui, beaucoup avec lui et avec son fils aussi.

RitchC.J.

Q. Vous &tiez sur un pied d'intimitbje pr6sume, avec M2. Kinnear? -R.

Q. Avant d'entrer IA, I. Beaudette, a-t-il 6 question entre vous et M. Frechete de quelque chose au sujet de votre visited M. Kinnear ?-R. Pas du tout. M. Frachette m'a demand6 d'aller avec lui, il m'a dit: " tu connais bien des gens."

Je lui ai dit: " c'est bien," et nous sommes partis tous les deux, et nous avons t A plusieurs places. Quand je suis arriv6 chez M. Kinnear, j'ai introduit M. Frdchette A M. Kinnear, et M. Frdchette a dit A M. Kinnear, vu qu'il se pr~sentait comme candidat que c'6tait son devoir d'aller le voir comme citoyen.

Q. Sije vous comprends bien, avant d'aller voir M. Kinnear, vous n'aviez fait aucun coaiplot entre vous et lui pour tendre des embfiches A M. Kinnear ?-Non.

Q. Si je ne trompe pas, il s'est pass6 quelque chose entre vous et M. Kinnear au sujet d'une souscription pour un Town Hall ?-R. Oui.

Q. Voulez-vous dire si le d6fendeur Frdchette 6tait pr6sent et a eu connaissance de cette conversation entre vous et M. Kinnear A propos de cette souscription ?-R. Non, M. Frdchette, n'6tait pas dans la maison quand j'ai parl4 aveo M. Kinnear.

Q. Lorsque vous 4tes e abarqu6 avec M. Frichette, M. Kinnear a-t-il dit quelque chose pouvant donner A comprendre & M. Frdchette qu'il avait requ quelques lib~ralit~s pour lui ou sa municipalit6 ?_ R. Non; quand je suis sorti avec M. Frdchette, la voiture 6tait attach6e A peu prbs A une cinquantaine de pieds de la porte; comme on revirait aveo la voiture, M. Kinnear a sorti sur le perron et a dit : "Ne passez pas chez mon fils James sans arritar le voir."

C'est ce que nous avons fait.

Q. Pendant quo cotte affaire de souscription s'est pass6e, M. Frdchette 6tait dans lejardin ?-R. Il6tait en dehors ; j'ai remarqu6 qu'il avait un jeu de croquet il y avait des dames et M. Frdchette 6tait avec elles A s'amuser; c'6tait A c6t6 do la maison, on les voyait par le chAssis, mais is ne pouvaient pas entendre la conversation. Q. Quand M. Frdchette est venu vous rejoindre pour embarquer, M. Kinnear, tout ce qu'il vous a dit est ceci :

N'oibliez pas d'a'ler chez mon fils James ?-R. C'est tout ce qu'il a dit.

And then we have the evidence of Kinnear:

Q. Do you remember the member elect, Mr. Frdchette, in company with Beaudet, going to your house while the canvass for the election was going on ?-A. Yes, they both came.

3f *** Q. Was that before or after the nominaion day ?-It was before. Q. It was a day or two before 7-A. I could not say exactly; it was a short time before. It was before the nomination.

Q. Would you relate, as nearly as you can remember, the RitchieCJ. conversation which took place with Frechette in the first instance at your house? -A.

Frichette and Beaudet called upon me and said that he was in the neighborhood.

I was well acquainted with Beaudet, being a commercial traveller, and calling at our place. They came in and sat down, and Mrs. Kinnear brought some little refreshments and chatted away, and asked Frichette how he was getting along, if he was intending to run. He said yes, that he had great encouragement and intended to go through.

After we talked. Alter this he went outside, and Mr. Beaudet was sitting on the sofa. I should say that before this occurred they asked me how the parties felt at the mill, regarding this election. I said that they felt rather cold, a good many of them in the main were so, that they did not like the member that was setting up to run, that the late Dr. Olivier was not very popular in Leeds, and I said if they -1 said for my part I was not going to interfere a great deal in this election. was cold about the thing, but at the same time that I would vote for my party, that I was always Liberal, and that I would vote for the a Liberal party, but not exert myself as much as in former elections. Then Irechette went out, and Mr. Beaudet asked me " Do you want any money for your church?"

I said "No, thank goodness, our church is free from debt, I did not want any money for it." We then continued talking, and he asked me again "Do you not want any money for anything ?" And I said " If you have any money to spare there is plenty of things we want it for."

We were thinking about putting up a public hall here and we were scarce of money. ThenBeaudette said, I think, Will twenty-five dollars do?" I said " Whatever you like, it is nothing to me."

I think he took twentyfive dollars and left it on the parlor table. And after this happened Mr. Frechette then came in, and when I wag bidding them good-bye, I said " Gentlemen, remember that this money has no influence, as far as I am concerned, with regard to the election."

1 said " I vote for Olivier, he has got my support, but I am not going to exert my. self canvassing among people as I formerly did."

Q. These last remarks you made in the presence of Mr. Frdchette ? -A.

Yes, they were both going away, and I was bidding them goodbye, and I said "Now, remember this has no influence with regard to my vote, alluding to the money. I think that is about all that happened."

Q. Did you inform the people that this .....

had been given for the purpose of the Tuwn Hall ?-A. No, it still remains there, and RitchC.J. I made an offer of it back again to Mr. Beaudet; the money will go for that purpose unless it goes back to those who gave it to me. It was left there, and I often felt sorry about having anything to do with it, and after that, I met Beaudet, shortly after the council here, he did not care about talking about it or anything. I said I think I had better pay you back this twenty-five dollars. It appears something as calling in conscience, I would rather not have it, but he walked on and went away, but it had no influence when the day of the election came.

I felt just as anxious to get votes for the Liberal side as before.

Q. Is it not a fact, Mr. Kinnear, that when Mr. Frdchette called at your place that he said because being himself a trader that ho 'considered he was owing you a visit, yourself being a trader ?-A. I explained that, he said he was in the neighbourhood, and called upon me to see me.

Q. I want to know if there was any mention of your being traders and you older that he thought it was due he should call on you ?--A. I believe it was a sort of a.

call, an electioneering call, it must have been, because I had no acquaintance with Mr. Frdchette, I had not known him before.

Q. I mean, you say that you were an old trader, and he Mr. Frdchette is also a trader, and being in your neighbourghood, and you being an old resident and trader, that he thought it was his duty, as an able man to call and see you ?-A. Well, I do not know about -perhaps that might be his idea for that.

Q. Have you any doubt that if Mr. Frdchette had been in your village that he would not have called, if it had not been election time ? Do you mean to say that if it had not been during the election time that Frdchette being in your village would not have called ?-A. I could not say for that, the only thing is I have no acquaintance with Frdchette, but having acquaintance with Beaudet they might have celled. Beaudet has often called.

Q. Do you undertake to swear, Mr. Kinnear, that when they left, and when you made the remark that you would not be influenced by that, as you said, do you undertake to swear that any mention in reference was made in the presence of Frechette of the twenty-five dollars that had been left by Beaudel ?-A. No mention whatever, after what mention I made of it.

Re-examined.

Q. When Frdchette came back to the room, andjyou accompanied them out of their vehicle, they were going away, you then made, if I understand'you rightly, in the presence of Frichette, a reference MEATIc to the money that had been left, and said the money would not influence you ?-A. I do not think I mentioned money, but I mentioned it would have no influence as far as.......... I referred Rite,C.J. to it, I do not know whether they understood it.

Q. Could Mr. Frdchette have helped understanding that you were making reference to something which had been done, or offered you with the view to influence your vote at the election ?-A. I have stated all that occurred.

Q. Mr. Kinnear, as a matter of fact, have you any doubt at all but that Mr. Frdchette called to see you because there was an election going on, have you any doubt in your mind about that at all? -A.

They said that they called for another purpose, that it was merely to see me as they were in the neighborhood, but of course as he was running for the county, my impression was that he called to see me with reference to that.

Q. Is it not a fact that you are the most prominent and most influential person in the neighborhood of Kinnear's Mills ?-A. I have got a certain amount of influence there, and there is some there that always vote whatever side I vote for, no matter whether it is Liberal or Conservative.

Thus we have it clearly established by Frechette that

$100 was given by him to Beaudet for the purposes of the election directly, and not through the instrumentality of a financial agent. In opposition, the subterfuge of Beaudet that the money was not given for the purposes of the election, but on account of an indebtedness of Frechette to him, Beaudet, and that the money was therefore his and not Frechette's; and Frdchette and Beaudet having, in the course of the avowed election expedition, come to the house of Kinnear, we have the flimsy pretence of Frechette that, because he was a fellow-trader, he thought he ought to call on him, and that that was the object of the visit, clearly overturned. Then we have the introduction into the conversation of the subject of the election, very clearly showing the cause and object of the visit, for in answer to a question to Cow: " Lui avez-vous parl6 d'election ? " R. " J'ai parl6 par rapport A la lettre qu'il avoit envoyee a M. Pileau," clearly inferring thereby that he was acquainted with Kinnear's feelings.

Then, so soon as Kinnear had made apparent his dis- -cC like, as still existing, to the candidateship of Olivier, Rth,.and his unwillingness to work for him, or to take as active a part in the election as he usually did in elections, we have the disappearance of Frechette from the room and leaving Beaudet there with Kinnear alone, under the flimsy pretence of Frechette that he went to look after his horse, which, the evidence shows, was tied only about fifty feet from the door, and does not appear to have needed any looking after; and the equally flimsy, but different, reason assigned by Beaudet that Frechette left the room to see some ladies playing croquet.

Then Beaudet's question to Kinnear, immediately on Frechette's leaving, to know if he did not want money for his church, and on receiving a negative answer, Beaudet's extraordinary reply to Kinnear that he, Kinnear, should have need of money for one thing another totally indifferent to Beaudet, so that he got Kinnear to take Frdchette's money, and then his leaving it on Kinnear's table.

Then we have the knowledge of the money having been given by Beaudet to Kinnear brought home to

Frechette on the spot by Kinnear as they were leaving, and Kinnear's evident intimation to Beaudet and Frechette that he thought they would expect it would influence him in the election, and his statement to them that it would have no influence, as far as he was concerned in the election. Then there is the absence of any repudiation of the act of Beaudet at this time or at any subsequent time, though Frechette admits that Beaudel informed him of the particulars of the transaction a day or two after: " Q. Et vous etiez satisfait. R. Je n'6tais pas pour les retirer ; ce n'est pas moi qui ai donn6

1'argent," where he inferentially adopts the act. The attempt of Beaudet to make it appear that the money was not given him by Frechette for election RitchieC.3. purposes, but that it was his and not Frechette's money in all which he was directly contradicted by Frechette. The clearly established fact, notwithstanding what

Beaudet says, that the $100 was given by Frechette to him for the purposes of the election, that this $25 was part of that sum, which it would have been a fraud on

Frechette if Beaudet, instead of spending it for the purpose for which it was entrusted to him, viz., that of the election, had distributed it behind Freckette's back in acts of unsolicited liberality or charity having no bearing on the election; the absence of any explanation by Beaudet though examined respecting the transaction ; the contradictions of Beaudet and Frechette. Then we have Cotd's expenditures.

He admits that the election cost him $1,500.

He thinks there are accounts still to come in. At pages 38 and 39 he says:- Q. N'avez-vous pas dit A M. D'Auzeuil, le cur6 d'Ireland, que votre

61ection vous coaltait quinze cents piastres ($1,500.00) ?-R. Je ne me rappelle pas de cela. J'ai dit que I'6lection d'Olivier devait coriter A peu pr s quinze cents piastres ($1,500.00).

Je ne me rappelle pas d'avoir dit que la mienne cottait quinze cents piastres

($1,500.00).

Je sais bien que j'ai parI de $1,500.00 (quinze cents piastres).

Q. Jurez-vous positivement que vous n'avez pas dit A M. D'Auteuil que votre 61ection vous cofltait A pen pris cela ?-R. Je ne puis pas jurer cela. Je puis avoir dit que 9a avait coatI

A peu pros quinze cents piastres ($1,500.00).

Je puis peut-6tre avoir dit cela, que

9'avait cofi6 a peu pros cela.

Q. N'est-il pas a votre connaissance qu'il y a une foule de comptes d'6lection qui ne sont pas venus encore et qu'on attend que ce procks-ci soit fini pour r6gler ?--Je ne sais pas.

Q. Pouvez-vous jurer que ce n'est pas A votre connaissance personnelle qu'il y a de ces comptes-la ?-R. D'apr~s moi je crois qu'il y a quelque compte a venir, je ne sais pas.

...........

The absence of any account being rendered by Frechelte or his financial agent of the payment of this and other monies to Beaudet, or of any account rendered by Beaudet to Frechette, or of any request by Frechette to Beaudet of an account of its expenditure; the large sums distributed by Frechette to his committee and agents without the instrumentality or knowledge of his financial agent, the dispositions of which were entirely unaccounted for, either by Frechette to his financial agent or by the parties to whom the expenditure was entrusted, to Frechette himself; the absence of any inquiry by Frechette as to such expenditure, and the large sums admittedly corruptly expended in the election by the agents of Frechette, all show the entire reckless disregard of the law in the manner of condu-ting the election all prevent a favorable view being taken of Frechette's conduct in reference to this transaetion, and so far from my being able to say that the learned Judge was clearly wrong in the decision at which he arrived, I am constrained to say that had the case come before me in the first instance I should have been compelled to come to the same conclusion.

J:- For the reasons assigned by Mr. Justice Plamondon, I am of opinion that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs. J.

I also am of opinion that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.

HENRY, J.:

I concur in the decision arrived at by my learned colleagues.

GWYNNE, J.:

The objection urged upon behalf of the appellant to the evidence of the quality of the petitioners to file the election petition in this case as duly qualified electors cannot be entertained. The voters' list prepared under the provisions of the Quebec statute, 88 Vic., ch. 7, when finally completed and filed of record as directed by that statute, is, in my opinion, the sole evidence required to be produced for the purpose of establishing the right of a person inserted thereon as a qualified voter to vote at an election held thereunder, and to file an election petition as such qualified voter. Ample opportunity is given to every one by the provisions of the statute to make objection to all persons inserted on the list as voters while it is in course of preparation, and the utmost precautions are provided to insure its J. accuracy, so that when it is finally completed and filed of record, as required by the statute, it becomes the title of record of every person inserted thereon to be an elector, entitled to vote at an election held under it, and as such entitled to maintain a petition calling in question the validity of the election. Neither is there anything in the other purely technical objections urged by the learned counsel for the appellant.

The appeal must therefore be disposed of upon its merits.

The learned judge, before whom the election petition was tried, has ayoided the election upon the grounds of bribery and corruption which he had found to have been committed by the appellant personally, and also by others, his duly authorized agents.

The charges affecting the appellant personally upon which the judgment of the learned judge proceeds, are five in number.

The first is comprised in items No. l and 19, inserted in the bill of particulars annexed to the record, which are as follows:

Ist. hundred dollars to one Jean Charles Beaudette, with which to commit bribery during the election, and

19th. That Jean Charles Beaudette, with the knowledge and consent of the appellant, who had furnished him with money for such purposes, gave to one James Kinnear the sum of twenty-five dollars 6 .for the purpose of corruptly influencing the vote of the said James Kinnear.

The learned judge, after a careful review of the evidence bearing upon this charge, came to the conclusion that it was clearly proved, and that in itself was not only sufficient to avoid the election, but to subject the appellant to be found guilty personally of corruption. The appellant and his agent, Beaudette, had the fullest opportunity of explaining their version of this transaction; indeed, they and Kiniear are the sole witnesses upon the charge.

It is apparent, however, that the learned judge was very unfavorably impressed with the manner in which the appellant gave his evidence upon all the charges which were under investigation before him, for he premises his judgment with a passage which I transcribe in his own language

Une observation trouve ici necessairement sa place.

C'est que le defendeur a 6tonnement vari6 dans les diverses d6positions et d6clarations qu'il a donnbes.

La cour d~clare sans h6sitation qu'elle croit de son devoir d'attacher plus de poids aux admissions, affirmations et explications contenues dans les r6ponses du difendeur A l'interrogatoire en chef plut6t que dans ses depositions subs6quentes faites exparte et qui d6c6lent le besoin et le desir d'amoindrir sinon d'an6antir compl~tement la preuve de faits compromet tants, preuve, rsultant d'un t6moignage long et minutieux donn6 plusieurs reprises, en pleine connaisance de cause, en toute libert6 sans la moindre pression de prcipitation, et sans le moindre pr6texte de d6faut de connaissance de cause, le defendeur bindficie d6ja suffisamment d'un dfaut de m6moire bien remarquable dans son premier interrogatoire.

Now that Beaudette gave to Kinnear the $25, and that the money so given was part of the $100 which the appellant had that same morning placed in Beaudette's hands, there can be no doubt. That the money placed by the appellant in Beaudette's hands was so placed for purposes of corruption, and to be expended in a manner similar to the inanner in which it was so soon after, and almost in the presence of the defendant applied, and that Beaudette's motive in giving the $25, although expressed to be given towards the erection of a public hall at the place where Kinnear lives was, in fact, in order to induce Kinnear either to vote for the appellant or at least not to vote or work against him, and that the appellant had at the time knowledge of the manner in which the sum of $25 was expended, of the source from which it came, and of Beaudette's motive in so expending it are all inferences which the evidence warranted, and it is sufficient for me to say, especially in view of the above extract from the judgment of the learned judge, that the learned counsel has failed to convince my mind that the finding of the learned judge is erroneous.

On the contrary, I am of opinion that the above inferences flow very naturally from the facts detailed in the evidence, and however serious are the consequences to the appellant, I can see nothing to justify us in reversing the judgment of the learned judge upon this charge. .

Another of the charges contained in the bill of particulars is that the appellant gave from $30 to $50 to one Porter to commit corrupt acts therewith, and that the money was employed by him for that purpose. The learned judge has found that the appellant enclosed in an envelope addressed to Porter the sum of $20, a day or two before the polling day, and he was of opinion that the sending of this $20 served to purchase the influence and services of Porter, who was to act as an agent of the appellant at one of the polling places. On the back of a piece of paper covering the money were written the words : "for expenses at your poll." There was no signature to this, nor was there any writing save the name and address of Porter, which were on the envelope. Porter could give no satisfac- tory account of his application of this money, and he professed to have been ignorant when he received it of the person from whom it came.

Now that this money J. was sent with a corrupt intent was a very natural inference for the learned judge to draw from the facts in evidence, for there was no legal expenses to be incurred by Porter at the poll for which he would require any money; and if sent to him with an honest motive, there was no occasion for such a statement of the purpose for which the money was sent, nor for suppressing the name of the person sending it, nor for omitting to have the amount entered in the account of the appellant's expenses at the election.

I confess that it appears to me that in these charges of personal corruption, the same preciseness should be required as in an indictment.

In this case the evidence, to my mind, rather proves the motive of the appellant in sending the money to have been the corrupt one charged than to influence the vote of Porter, which, as

& acheter l'influence et les services de Porter " are open to the construction that the money was given to purchase the good offices and services of Porter in freely treating the voters on the polling day at the poll where Porter was to represent the appellant, a practice which appears to have been largely indulged in at some of the polling places by persons acting in the interest of the appellant, in which case the charge "pour faire de la corruption " would be established.

However, as the first charge is sufficient to support the learned judge's judgment, it is unnecessary to dwell upon this one, or upon the others, which are charges of corrupt treating, as to which latter I think it not inopportune to observe that these charges of corrupt treating appear to me to afford a good illustration of the importance of our being very careful not to set aside the finding of the judge of first instance upon matters of fact, unless thoroughly convinced that the finding is erroneous. As to the mere fact of treating, there may not be, and frequently is not, any question raised--the criminality lies in the intent of the party in treating; and judging from the observations above quoted from the learned judge's judgment, I cannot but think that the very unsatisfactory character of the evidence given by the appellant, and his demeanor under examination mainly contributed to induce the learned judge to draw the inference that the intent in the cases adjudicated upon by him was corrupt, and as upon appeal we have not that evidence before us, as the learned judge had, we are not in a position that would justify us in pronouncing his judgment to be erroneous.

Appeal dismissed with costs.