Soulanges Election Case

view I take of the other questions I have already spoken WEST of. I think tho appeal should be allowed with costs and the election avoided.

ELECTION

. W. Kerr.

FLAVIEN CHOLETTE ..............

........ APPELLANT; *Oct. 28.29

& 30.

JAMES W. BAIN............

...... RESPONDENT. 'Jan'y 12.

1ON APPEAL FROM JOHNSON, J., SITTING FOR THE TRIAL OF THE SOULANGES CONTROVERTED ELECTION CASE. Dominion Elections Act, 1874, Sec. 95-Intimidation- Undue influence-Conspiracy between Deputy Returniny Oficer and respondent's agent to interfere with franchise by marking ballots-Effect of-Election void.

In an election petition it was charged that the respondent personally, as well as acting by C. A. D. P. and others, his agents, did undertake and conspire to impede, prevent, and otherwise interfere with the free exerciseof thefranchiseof certain voters, and that, in furtherance of a premeditated scheme which the respondent and his agents well knew to be illegal, they < id, in fact, so impede, prevent, and interfere with the exercise of the franchise of certain voters, by getting their ballots marked, rendered identifiable, and consequently void, whereby the fran chise of these voters was unjustifiably interfered with.

At a previous election the respondent had been defeated by a majority of three votes, and the election having been contested was set aside, and certain voters were reported by the judge as having been guilty of corrupt practices, but had not been found *PRESENT.-Sir W.

guilty of such corrupt practices under section 104 of the Dominion 18b4 Elections Act, 1874.

At a public meeting before the election C. A. the respondent's agent, to intimidate these persons and prevent them from voting, in a speech made by him, threatened them with punishment if they voted; and subsequently printed notices to the same effect were sent to these voters.

On the polling day D. P., who had been appointed depuiy returning officer, on the distinct understanding with, and promise made to, the returning officer that he would not mark the ballots of these voters, consulted with C. A. and on his advice and in collusion with him marked the ballots of certain of these voters. Held,-That the election was void by reason of the attempted intimidation practiced by C. A. the respondent's agent; and by reason also of the conspiracy, between the said agent and the deputy returning officer, to interfere with the free exercise of the franchise of voters, violations of sec. 95 of the Dominion Elections Act, 1874, and corrupt practices under section 98 of the said Act.

APPEAL from the judgment of Johnson, J., rendered on the 2nd of July, 1884, maintaining the respondent as the duly elected member of the House of Commons for the electoral district of Soulanges, and dismissing the petition of the appellant, with costs.

The respondent, James W. Bain, was returned for the electoral district of Soulanges, at an election for the Dominion House of Commons, held on the 20th and 27th December, 1883.

His election was contested by the appellant on the 8th February last by a petition in the usual form, as to corrupt practices, without claiming the seat. The respondent met the petition, 1st, by a denial of the petitioner's right to petition; 2nd, by a denial that any corrupt practices had been committed by himself, his agents and partizans.

On the 20th March, 1884, respondent's plea of want of quality on the part of the petitioner was rejected, and on the 2nd July, 1884, Johnson, J., after the hearing of witnesses, rendered judgment, maintaining the election and dismissing the petition with costs. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the question decided by the court was whether the facts upon which charge No. 96 of the petition was rested, constituted violations of section 95 of the Dominion Election Act, 1874.

The charge is as follows:

"On or about the 26th December, 1883, before polling " day and during said election, defendant personally and " by his agents, specially by Charles A. Cornellier, advo- "cate, of Montreal, and Damien Prieur, clerk, of St. "Zotique, did contrive, frame and conclude a design to "intimidate, stop and hinder in the free exercise of their "electoral franchise the following persons, to wit: ".Tean Baptiste Elie, Th6odore Duval, Gabriel Leroux, " Charles Chdles, Isale Fournier, Damase Fournier, Joseph " A. Legris, Elie Baptiste Prieur, Joseph Pilon, Adnd- "zippe Cusson, Sdraphin Bissonette, Th6ophile Sureau, "dit Blondin, and, by executing said design through the "agency of defendant's agent at the poll of St. Zolique, "held by said Damien Prieur, did intimidate, stop and "hinder in the free exercise of their electoral franchise "the said above mentioned persons voting at said poll, "to wit: J. B. Elie, Gabriel Leroux, Thdodore Duval, " Charles Chdles, Isaie Fournier, and Damase Fournier, "all of them electors of St. Zotique, against the instruc- "tions and notifications of the returning officer, A. M. "Pharand."

The documentary and oral evidence relied on as proving the said charge, are reviewed at length in the j udgments hereinafter given.

The following authorities were cited and relied on as applicable to the facts of the case.

The Kamouraska case (1) ; the Taval case (2) ; the Jacques Cartier case (3); Rouville Election case (4); unningham onElections (5); Rogers on Elections (6); Gloucester case (7) ; Bothwell Election case (8); Journals House of Commons (9).

North Durham (10) ; Windsor case (11); Bradlord case

(12); Stafford case (13); Bolton case (14); Hackney case

(15); Drogheda case (16).

The remarks of Justice Blackburn in the North Norfolk case (11): "But, in order to bring a case within this

"section, it must be shown that the loss or damage

"inflicted or threatened is of a substantial nature. What

"may be called a mere precarious loss would not neces- "sarily be sufficient."

The Vercheres Election case decided by Judge Jetid (18).

RITCHIE, C. J.:- It was charged by particular 96 that the respondent personally as well as acting by Mr. Cornellier, by

Damein Prieur and other persons unknown to the petitioner, did undertake and conspire to impede, prevent and otherwise interfere with the free exercise of the franchise of the following voters, to wit : Joseph A.

Legris, Joseph Pilon, and Elie B. Prieur, of Coteau Landing, Charles Chdles, John Elie, Gabriel Lerouz, Theodore Duval, Damase Fournier, Baptiste Fournier, Zotique Lalonde, and others of St. Zotique, Mdndsippe Q.

&

& less5

Cusson of St. Clet, and that, in furtherance of a premedi- SouNEss tated scheme which they, respondent and his agents, well knew to be illegal, they did, in fact, so impede, -prevent and interfere with the exercise of the franchise RitchieC.J.of certain electors, Charles Chdles, John Elie, Gabriel Leroux, Thdodore Duval, Damase Fournier, Baptiste Fournier, Zotique Lalonde, all electors of the Parish of St. Zolique, by getting their ballots marked, rendered identifiable and consequently void, whereby the franchise of these voters Was unjustifiably interfered with. This is the only charge I think it necessary to discuss.

There is no controversy as to the facts upon which this charge was rested ; the question submitted to this court is therefore not one of the interpretation to be given the evidence, as to which there is no conflict. It is a question of law, as to whether the facts constitute a violation of section 95 of our Dominion Elections Act. There can be no doubt that Cornellier was not only the agent of the respondent, but the organizer of respondent's whole election.

He gives this account of himself:

Q. Ds l'6manation du bref dont il est question on cette cause, vous vous ftes mis en rapport avec le d~fendeur, n'est-ce pas ? R. Oui, monsieur.

Q. Ici ou A Nontrdal ? R. Ii, & Aontrdal, partout je rencontrb, je me suis charg6 de I'organisation et je Pai faite,

Q. C'est vous qui vous 6tes charg6 de I'organisation, et c'est vous qui l'avez faite ? R. Oni.

Q. Par cons6quent, il s'est repos6 sur vous par rapport A cette organisation-lI ? R. Je crois que oui.

Q. Vous avez agi en consequence ? R. Oui, monsieur.

Q. Etes-vous all6 ches lui pendant 1election ? R. Tr~s-souvent. Q. Qu'entendez-vous par tras-souvent ?

R. Plusieurs fois par semane.

Q. Avez-vous s~journ6 chez lui? R. J'ai s~journ6 chez lui, j'ai couch6 chez lui, j'ai mang6, je me suis retir6 chez lui en diffrents temps, lorsque j6tais dans la paroisse de St. Polycarpe, je me suis retir6 chez monsieur Bain.

Q. Et il 6tait entendu que vous dexiez conduire 1'61ect'on? R. 6tait entendu que je devais prendre une part active A 1'6lection. It is equally clear that up to the time of his appointment as deputy returning officer, Damien Prieur had taken an active part in the election.

Bitchie,C.J. In his evidence he answers as follows:

Q. Avez-vous pris une part active & la derniare 61ection? monsieur, j'ai pris une part active A 1'6lection, jusqu'A ma nomination comme sous-officier rapporteur.

Q. En faveur du dbfendeur?

Q. Vous aves toujours travaill6 pour ihonsieur Bain, n'est-ce pas? R. Dans ses deux 6lections.

Q. Monsieur Bain le savait?

R. Oui, il devait le savoir. And he knew that at the previous election between the same parties in which he had worked for Mr. Bain which had been set aside, that the majority was only three votes :

Q. Etes-vous a1l6 chez li pendant l'6lection? R. Non, monsieur. Q. Est-il venu chez vous ? R. est venu chez moi, c'est-A-dire, pas chez moi, mais chez mon pbre.

Q. Vous saviez que sa minorit6 Al'61ection pr~c~dente avait t de trois voix? R. Oui, monsieur, il a eu d'abord deux voix et ensuite, apras le d~compte, il a eu trois voix.

His appointment, he being so unquestionably a partizan, was most imprudent on the part of the returning officer, if he was aware of it, (which I am happy to say does not appear to have been the case, but on the contrary he seems to have acted with great discretion and propriety,) and Prieur's acceptance most reprehensible, for judged by his previous partizanship, and communications with Cornellier in reference to these votes, and his subsequent conduct, it could only have been to enable him to use his office in conjunction with Mr. Cornellier in violating the law in the interest of the respondent.

Here is what be says:

Q. Avez-vous vu monsieur Cornellier pendant la dernibre Alection? R. Oui, monsieur, tras souvent.

Q. Trbs souvent ?

R. Bien, c'est-A-dire trbs souvent, plusieurs fois.

Q. Chez vous?

R. Une couple de fois chez nous, deux ou trois fois, je n'ai pas remarqu& toutes les fois que je l'ai vu i chaque fois RitchieC.J. que je l'ai vu i chaque fois qu'il est venu A St. Zotique, il est venu chez nous.

Q. Vous Pavez vu ailleurs, aussi? R. Je Pai vu chez mon beaupere.

Q. Qui cela?

R. Monsieur Filiatrault.

Q. Monsieur Stanislas? R. Oui, monsieur.

Q. Vous a-t-il parl6 avant P61ection de certains voteurs de St. Zotique qui ne devaient pas voter? R. Personnellement, il ne m'en a pas parl6, mais il a dit chez monsieur Filiatrault, et partout oi il a t, que certains voteurs n'avaient pas droit de vote, il a dit cela devant moi.

Q. Seul vous en a-t-il parl6 A vous ? R. A moi personnellement, tout seul, non.

Q. Vous en a t-il parl6 a vous, soit soul on avec d'autres? R. Avec d'autres il m'a dit que ces gens-lI n'avaient pas droit de vote, qu'ils 6taient d~qualifiks.

Q. Vous a-t-il parl6 de la manire dont vous deviez prendre les objections aux votes de ces gens-ld? R. Il m'a dit qu'une objection serait fil6e.

Q. Bien, voulez-vous dire si monsieur Cornellier vous a parl6 de certaines objections qu'il devait faire aux votes des blecteurs qu'il pr6tendait Atre d6qualifi6s?

R. Je crois qu'il m'a parl A propos de cela; il m'a dit qu'il avait certaines objections A faire sur certains votes qui 6taient connus comme dbqualifis dans le comt6.

Q. Qu'est-ce qu'il vous a dit ?

R. m'a dit que ces gens-la n'avaient pas droit de vote, qu'il pr6tendait que ces gens-la navaient pas droit de vote, qu'ils 6taient disqualifibs par la loi.

Q. Est-ce tout ? R. Je crois que c'est tout......Bien, le matin, il est venu chez nous......

Q. Quel matin? F. Le matin de la votation.

Q. Qu'est-ce qu'il vous a dit ? Qu'est-ce qu'il est all4 faire chez vous? R. Il m'a dit que j'avais parfaitement le droit de marquer les bulletins des gens qui 6taient disqualifi6s par la loi.

Q. Etiez-vous sous-officier-rapporteur?

Q. Au poll num6ro huit?

Q. Et monsieur Cornellier est venu chez vous le matin mime de la votation ? R. Monsieur Cornellier est venu chez nous le matin de la votation et it m'a dit que j'avais parfaitement le droit de marquer le bulletin des gens qui 6taient d6qualifiks par la loi, qu'il pr&tendait qui 6taient d6qualifi6s par la lol

Q. Monsieur Prieur, que lui avez-vous dit alors ? R. Je lui ai dit: correct, si j'ai droit de le faire, je le ferai."

SouLAs Q. Vous a-t-il montr6 ses objections?

R. Je les ai vues avant. Q. Vous les avez vues avant la votation ? R. J'ai lu la nature des objections.

RitchieC.J. Q. II vous les a montr6es ? R. Oui.

We find the returning officer distinctly and formally instructing his deputy as to his duty in respect to not marking the ballots, and intimating to him his unwillingness to appoint him if he was not satisfied to act as instructed. Here is what the returning officer says: Q. Y avait-il de ces 6lecteurs qui se trouvaient dans cette situation particuliere A St. Zotique ? R. Oui, monsieur.

Q. Pouvez-vous dire qui ils ftaient? R. Charles Chd'es, Gabriel Leroux, John Elie, je crois, et peut-tre quelques autres i je me rappelle que de ces trois-lA.

Q. Isaie et Damase Four ier ? R. Je ne pourrais pas jurer. Q. Qui a agi comme votre d6puth-officier-rapporteur au poll de St. Zotique? R. Olioer Damien Prieur.

Q. II 6tait nomm6 par vous, n'est-c6 pas? R. Oui, monsieur, sa commission est du vingt-deux decembre dernier.

Q. Vous reconnaissez ici la commission en vertu de laquelle Damien Prieur agissait A ce poll-1 ? R. Oui, monsieur.

Q. Cette commission est sign6e par vous?

Q. Lui avez-vous donn6 des instructions requises par la loi ? R. Je lui ai donn6 des instructions imprimbes et des instructions verbales.

Q. II avait dbji agi comme sous-officier-rapporteur ? R. Deux fois. Q. A-t-il eula loi entre ses mains ? R. Oui, monsieur.

Q. II est revenu vous trouver pendant l'Alection, M. Pharand ? R. est venu chercher sa boite le vingt-quatre d~cembre.

Q. Qui 6tait pr6sent ? R. Monsieur Juaire.

Q. C'est ce M. Juaire qui a agi commevotre sous-officier-rapporteur A la riviere Beaudette, n'est-ce pas ?

Q. Voulez-vous dire ce qui s'est pass6 dans cette circonstance-lA, quand il est venu chercher la boite ? R. Quand if est venu chercher sa boite, il est arriv6 avec son livre ouvert, me disant qu'il avait des objections.

Q. Quel livre ouvert? R. L'acte de la loi f6d6rale de mil huit cent soixante-quatorze, me disant qu'il y avait des objections fil&es contre les voteurs d~qualifibs, et qu'il 6taic d6cid6 d'agic en vertu de Particle cinquante-six. Lje lui ai fait comprendre que ceci ne se rapportait que lors du des bulletins du scrutin A la fin de la votation et je lui ai d~fendu formellement d'employer ce moyen-l1, lui disant que les objections qui seraient faites, de les entrer au cahier de votation avec un numiro correspondant A celui de l'objection, et que Rite

J. par ce moyen, on verrait si ces 6lecteurs-14 avaient vot6 ou non, et que ce serait aux tribunaux & d~cider plus tard sur la 16galit6 de leurs votes.

Q. Lui avez-vous dit qu'il fallait assermenter les voteurs et entrer les objections au cabier de votation?

R. Je lui ai dit que le cahier de votation contenait la profession, la i6sidence, la qualit6 de pro. pri6taire ou locataire enfin la qualification, et que s'il y avait des objections, d'entrer le mot " object6 " avec le num6ro correspondant i celui des objections, et que si on demandait d'assermenter les voteurs, de les assermenter, et que s'ils refusaient de voter on de jurer, qu'il devait entrer la question et la r6ponse, et que s'ils voulaient, qu'il devait tout consigner au cahier de votation.

Q. Lui avez-vous dit qu'il ne devait pas assermenter les bulletins de cotte nature-l ? R. Oui, monsieur.

Q. Le lui avez-vous dit formellement?

Q. N'est-il pas vrai M. Pharand, que vous avez d~clar6, que si Damien Prieur ne suivait pas vos instructions, que vous ne le nommeriez pas votre d6put6 ? R. J'ai fait remarquer A M. Prieur que s'il ne voulait pas se conformer aux instructions que j'avais reques, et que s'il ne voulait pas me dire qu'il 6tait r~ellement convaincu que les instructions que je lui donnais 6taient 16gales, que je prfererais ne pas lui donner la boite, ne pas lui donner sa commission, et il est parti en disant qu'il 6tait parfaitement convaincu que j'Avais droit. Q. Que vous aviez raison?

Then we have the obtaining the appointment on the assurance to the returning officer that he was perfectly satisfied that the returning officer was right.

Notwithstanding all of which we find him immediately after, consulting with Mr. Cornellier, acting on his advice or instructions, and in direct opposition to and defiance of those of the returning officer, and marking and destroying the ballots, and complaint is made to the returning officer who writes a letter, (though strange to say under the circumstances he was prevented from giving the contents,) which evidently was forbidding his continuing the practice.

Prieur, in his examination, says what the letter contained; viz.:

Elle disait A peu pris ceci: qu'il m'avait d6fendu de marquer les bulletins, de faire ces choses-A, et que si je les faisais, c'6tait A mes risques et p6rils, si je les faisais, on si je I'avais fait.

Ritchie,(.J. The deputy returning officer ext ibits his partizan character and his complicity with Cornellier in this, which I can only designate as a conspiracy to destroy ballots, by showing this letter to the agents of the respondent, but refusing to allow the agent of the opposite candidate to see it. His evidence on this point leaves no doubt in my mind as to the improper motives which prompted him throughout :

Q. A quatre heures et demie vous avez requ une lettre de lofficier rapporteur, monsieur Pharand? R. Oui, monsieur,

Q. Lavez-vous cette lettre-ld ? R. Je ne Fai pas sur moi, mais je dois 1'avoir chez nous; 'autre jour en regardant des papiers, il me semble l'avoir vue.

Q. Que disait cette lettre ? R. Elle disait A peu pr~s ceci: qu'il m'avait d6fendu de marquer les bulletins, de faire. ces choses-lIA et que, si je les faisais, c'6tait A mes risques et p6rils, si je le faisais ou si je l'avais fait.

Q. Qui vous a remis cette lettre? Q. O'est monsieur Biesonnette, je crois.

Q. Monsieur Frangois Bissonnette ? R. Oui.

Q. Le secr6taire d'6lection de monsieur Pharand, l'officier-rapporteur? R. Je ne le sais pas.

Q. Vous a-t-il (lit de mettre cette lettre-d dans les archives de votre bureau de votation ? R. Apr~s qu'il m'eut remis la lettre, il est rest6 dans le poll une escousse, et quand il est parti, il m'a dit de mettre la lettre dans les archives du poll.

Q. vous a dit de mettre la letire dans les archives du poll? R. Oui, monsieur Rissonnette m'a dit de la mettre dans les archives, mais la lettre ne le dit pas.

Q. Avez-vous mis la lettre dans les archives du poll? R. Non, parce que je consid~rais que c'6tait une lettre priv6e.

Q Avez-vous montr6 cette lettre au repr6sentant de monsieur Bain, dans ce poll-lA? R. Oui, monsieur, parce qu'il me 'a demand6. Q Le repr~sentant de monsieur Bain vous a demand6 la lettre? R. m'a demand6 si je voulais lui montrer la lettre et je la lui ai montr6e.

Q* Avez-vous recu la m~me demande de la part du repr~sentant de M. deBeaujeu ? R. Peut-8tre......c'est possible......je crois que oui. Q. Lui avez-vous montr6 la lettre? R. Non, je ne la lui ai pas OSs.

montr6e, monsieur Cornellier I'avait dans les mains quand il me I'a demand6e et il me la donn6e ensuite.

Q. Vous ne la lui avez pas montr6e ? R. Non.

Q. Pourquoi n'avez-vous pas communiqu6 cette lettre-ld aux deux repr6sentants des deux candidats? R. Parce que c'4tait une lettre priv~e et je suis bien le maitre de montrer mes lettres A qui je voudrai.

Q. Vous ne Pavez pas mise dans les archives du poll, parce que vous consid6riez que c'6tait une lettre priv~e?

I cannot conceive that an agent of a candidate, or a deputy returning officer, could act in a more flagrant manner in violation of the law, to defeat the right of voters and prevent a fair and honest election according to law than was done in this case by the respondent's agent and this unworthy deputy returning officer. Here is what another party says:

Q. Monsieur Parbyre, avez-vous durant la dernibre 6lection rencontr6 monsieur Charles Auguste Cornellier, 6cuyer, avocat, quelque part? R. Oui, monsieur, je I'ai rencontr6 chez Stanislas Filiatrault, la veille de la nomination.

Q. Etiez-vous all spcialement pour le voir ? R. J'avais 6t0 demand6, c'est-A-dire, monsieur Filiatrault avait envoy6 son petit gargon pour me chercher disant que M. Cornellier d6sirait me donner des instructions.

Q. A qtel titre devait-il vous dnnrer ces instructions? R. Il me donnait ces instructions comme devant 6tre nomm6 sous-officierrapporteur.

Q. Aviez-vous raison de vous attendre A Ctre nomm6 sous-officierrapporteur.

R. Je n'en savais rienje n'avais pas en de commission, seulement on m'avait dit que je devais 1'Atre; mais l'officier-rapporteur ne m'en avait jamais parl6.

Q. Veuillez done racontdir A la cour ce qui s'est pass6 entre M. Cornellier et vous ? R. Je suis arriv6 le jour de la nomination, au soir, et M. Cornellier m'a dit qu'il d6sirait me parler. M. Filiatrault m'a introduit A M. Cornellier. M. Cornellier a dit : " Asseyez-vous; je vous ai fait demander po ir vous donner des instructions concernant l'6lection; on

'a dit que vous deviez tre nomm officier-rapporteur, etj'ai des instructions A vous donner " : Et M. Cornellier a commenc6 ses instructions, il a commenc6 A me dire qu'il y aurait des votes d'object6s, et que ces objecti-ns seraient pr6sent6es par l'agent de M. Bain.

Q. Vous a-t-il mentionn6 le fait que ces objections devaient 6tre imprimbes ou quelque chose ? R. Ces objections 6taient inprimees RitchieCJ. dans le temps. Ensuite il m'a dit: " Lors que quel qu'un se pr&sentera . pour voter, vous mettrez ]a premibre objection qui vous sera pr~sentbe, objection No. 1, ainsi de suite pour les autres.

Q. Vous a-t il mentionn6 quelques noms de personnes, A propos de ces objections dans le temps?

R. Il m'a mentionn6 Sraphin Deschamps, pore.

I m'a dit: "Si Seraphim Deschamps, p6re, se pr&sentait," et ainsi de suite.

Q. Si je comprends bien votre r6ponse, M. Cornellier vous aurait dit de marquer cela sur le dos des bulletins ? R. Sur le dos des bulletins, et ensuite au d6pouillement, mettre les bulletins marqu6s avec les objections, les mettre sous enveloppe; en ayant soin de mettre sous enveloppe les bulletins 6cart~s.

Etensuitej'ai demand6 pour quelle raison.

" La raison, c'est celle-ci, a-t-il dit, c'est que les bulletins iront devant le juge, et le juge d~cidera si ces bulletins devront servir A M. de Beaujeu ou non," et alors il m'alu quelque chose il m'a lu quelque chose comme quoi il avait raison de faire cela. The conduct of both these parties deserves, in my opinion, the severest condemnation. The agent of the respondent, in the first place, trying privately to induce a person whom he supposed would be appointed deputy returning officer, in case he was so appointed, to violate the law in the interest of the party for whom he was acting; and afterwards privately interfering with a public officer and inducing him to violate the law and his duty under it, and so to act in opposition to what I cannot doubt from his connection in this transaction with the deputy returning officer he must have known, (in fact Prieur swears he told him,) were the instructions of his superior, the returning officer; and the deputy returning officer, in holding private conversations behind the back of his superior officer and advising with an agent of one of the candidates, and acting on such advice by marking ballots of voters with a view to their identification, and so to destroy them and prevent their being counted in the interest of such candidate, (and this, too, on an unfounded pretence that such voters had been judicially disqualified, when, in fact, there had been no such disqualification,) not only in defiance of the law, but in defiance of the officer appointing him, responsible for the appointment of proper persons under him, and in breach of the instructions of his superior and of his promise and undertaking to that officer, that he would act in conformity with the law and his instructions, and without the giving of which promise it is obvious he would never have been appointed. I can hardly conceive a more fraudulent device or contrivance in the language of the 95th section of the Dominion Elections Act, "to impede, prevent, or inter- " fere with the free exercise of the franchise of the "(voters." This being so, there clearly has been a violation of that section by the terms of which the party guilty of such violation is to be deemed to have committed the offence of undue influence, and which by sec. 98 is declared to be a corrupt practice, and by sec. 101 any corrupt practice committed by a candidate at an election, or by agent, whether with or without the actual knowledge and consent of such cand:ate, the election of such candidate, if he has been elected, shall be void.

I cannot conceive a case which calls more imperatively for the marked condemnation of this court than this, for if tampering with :eturning officers by candidates or their acuts is tolerited, or such combinations and conspiracies to act in direct opposition to the law can be entered into with impunity between candidates or their agents and returning officers, both the letter and spirit of the law is set at nought aud an honest, free election becomes an impossibility, if unscrupulous parties choose so to combine, and returning officers can be found to lend themselves to such like schemes and be permitted in their official capacity to carry them out with impunity.

J.:- I am likewise of opinion that this election must be set aside, and that upon two distinct grounds: First, on the ground of threats to voters and attempts at intimidation ; and, secondly, upon the ground that the arrangement come to between Mr. Cornellier and the deputy returning officer to mark the ballots of certain voters, and what was done in pursuance that of arrangement, were acts of improper interference with the exercise of their franchises by those voters within the meaning of sec. 95 of the Dominion Elections Act, 1874. The original attempt at intimidation was made at a meeting held at St. Zotique previous to the election, and is referred to in a passage of the judgment of the learned judge who tried the petition-Mr. Justice Johnsonwho thus states his conclusion from the evidence:at St. think that there just the matter i it that the that

This is a rather more favorable construction than I should have been inclined, had I been dealing with this case in a court of first instance, to have placed on the evidence, but I am willing and, probably, I am bound, according to the principles of dealing with evidence in an appellate court, to accept this finding as conclusive.

In addition to this however it was proved that Mr. Cornellier told these electors that if they voted in violation of the law they should be prosecuted.

1S85

Then, assuming that Mr Cornellier, in his speech at St Zotique, stated neither more nor less, but just what E.EcHON was contained in the notices subsequently served on -the voters in question at the poll, let us see what that Strong, J. rtatement was in point of fact, and then enquire'what we must consider to be its legal effect.

The notice served is as follows:- Je soussign6, agent diftment autoris6 de James William Bain, 6cuyer, I'un des candidats A la pr6sente 6lection, objecte au vote de Charles Okdles, fils, de St. Zotique, 61ecteur apparaissant A la liste blectorale de I'arrondissement No. 8, et qui s'est pr6sent6 pour voter sous le num6ro hu, du cahier de votation du Poll No. 8.

Et pour raisons au soution de cette objection, je d6clare en ma qualit6 susdite, que je m'objecte A ce que le present 6lecteur ne donne son vote, attendu que par jugement prononc6 le six octobre dernier (1883), A Coteau Landng, dans la cause de contestation d'election, dans laquelle Stanislas Filiatreault, commergant du Coteau Landing, 6tait p6titionnaire, et G. R. L. G. H. S. de Beaujeu, 6tait d6fendeur et inscrite sous le num6ro trois des dossiers de la Cour Sup6rieure si6gant sous l'acte des 6lections f6dirales contest~es de 1874 et amendments, le dit jugement prononc6 par son Honneur le juge Loranger-le dit Charles Chdles, fils, apris avis, driment signifi6 sur lui et trouv6 suffisant par le dit jugement, apr~s contestation, a t6 trouv6 coupable de manoeuvres frauduleuses et men~es corruptrices an sens du dit acte, et rapport6es en cons6quence A l'orateur de la Chambre des Communes du Canada, et que, partant, il est devenue 6lecteur d6qualifi6 (scheduled briber) au sens de la sec. 104 du dit acte des 61ections f~drales contest~es de 1874 et amendements, et ce pour huit ann6s A venir A dater du six octobre dernier 1883, et qu'il ne peut voter A la pr6sente 6lection.

Je requiers 6galement 'assermentation du dit Charles Chdles, fils et demande que la pr6sente objection soit nothe an dos du bulletin qui sera d61ivr6 (si aucun ne I'est), en par le s3us-officier rapporteur mettant au dos du dit bulletin, s'il en d61ivre un, le mame num6ro que celui de l'objection, pour que sa d~cision puiss tre r~vis~e par la cour, an cas de scrutiny.

Agent autoris6 de J. W. Bain. Therefore, adopting the conclusion of the learned judge, that the statement of Mr. Cornellier at the St. Zotique meeting was the equivalent of what was contained in these notices subsequently served, we must take it to be proved that Mr. Cornelier then publicly stated to and of those electors whose names were mentioned in the report made to the Speaker by Mr. Justice

Loranger, who tried a former controverted election for . the county, that they had been found guilty of corrupt practices under sec. 104 of the Dominion Elections Act of 1874. That section is as follows next at to at

Then it is the law that any voter who, having been legally disqualified by the judge trying an election petition, afterwards, in contravention of such sentence of disqualification, votes at a subsequent election, is in addition to a liability to an indictment at common law, subject to such penalties as might be imposed by an election judge pursuant to the provisions of see

117 of the Dominion Elections Act of 1874.

So that it is proved by the clearest evidence, and according to the finding of the judge, that Mr. Cornellier, in his speech at St. Zotique, openly and publicly declared to the voters named in Mr. Judge Loranger's report that they were disqualified from voting, and that if they voted they would be liable to such penalties and punishments as might be imposed by law, which, he further declared, should be enforced by all processes of law which could be taken advantage of against them for those purposes.

The assertion of disqualification and threat of punishment in the case of voting thus made, I hld to have been, under the real facts of the case, a practising of intimidation upon the voters named, with a view to induce them to refrain from voting, under the express words of the 95th sec. of the Dominion Elections Act, 1874. It matters not that this attempted intimidation did not succeed, but that all these voters afterwards, and after Strong, J. being advised by others, had the courage, in the face of the intimidation which had been practised and the threats which had been made, to present themselves at the poll and insist upon their votes being received. Nothing is better established in point of law than the proposition that the threat, if made by an agent of the candidate, though unsuccessful in deterring the voter, is sufficient to avoid the election.

In the Northallerton case (1) Mr. Justice Willes says:

Then, when the voters came to the poll there was a repetition of the attempt at intimidation which had been practised at the St. Zotique meeting, in a more formal and deliberate way, by serving upon the deputy returning officer, openly and in the presence of the voters, the notice already referred to, calling upon the officer to reject thi votes because the voters had been found guilty of corrupt practices and fraudulent devices by the judge who had tried the former petition.

Now, it is no answer as a justification these charges of intimidation to say that the statement of Mr. Cornellier at the meeting, and the assertion .to the same effect in the notice, that these persons had been found guilty, as alleged, is literally true, and, that Mr. Justice Loranger had, as the fact was, stated in his report to the Speaker, that they were guilty of corrupt practices. The charge advanced by Mr. Cornellier was, that they had been found guilty of corrupt practices in such a way as to disqualify them from voting, and to make them liable to punishment and penalties if they did vote. The report to the Speaker does not establish anything of the kind. In order to disqualify an elector and make him liable to penalties if he should vote after disqualification, it is made by the 104th section, which

I have already stated, an indispensable condition that Strong, J. " after notice of the charge he shall have had an opportunity of being heard,"

Now, in the present case, it is manifest that this most just, fair and reasonable provision of the law had not been observed.

It is true that the electors in question had been served with a notice to appear before Mr. Justice Loranger, and to show cause why they shoild not be reported as guilty, and that they attempted to set aside this notice, but they never were confronted with the witnesses whose testimony was relied on to prove them guilty, and they never had an opportunity of making their defence, for they never had an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses against them, which, as will be universally acknowledged, is the most valuable incident of the right of defence which an accused person possesses.

The witnesses relied on to prove corrupt practices against these persons may, it is true, have been crossexamined in the principal trial on the main issue-the validity of the election ; but it was one thing to crossexamine them on behalf and in the interest of the respondent to the petition, and another and a totally different thing to cross-examine them on behalf of these electors accused of corrupt practices. It is beyond all question that no opportunity was ever afforded for a cross examination of this latter kind, and in the absence of it, it is impossible to say that these persons were ever heard in their defence, or afforded an opportunity of being so heard, sufficient to bring them within the provision of the 104th section. They were, therefore, never legally disqualified, and had an unimpeachable right to vote.

am not prepared to say that Mr. Cornellier did not believe the law was as he stated it to be, or that he knew that the facts did not warrant his statement of the law.

So far from imputing to Mr. Cornellier that Strong, J. he knowingly and wilfully misstated either facts or law, I now repeat what I said at the argument, that I believe he acted in perfect good faith, and considered himself 'justified in making the assertions he did to these persons.

But what I hold is, that an agent of a candidate, whether advocate or layman, who undertakes to tell an elector he has no right to exercise his franchise, and will be subject to punishment or penalties if he does so, or who makes representations and assertions to an elector respecting his right to vote calculated to intimidate him and to induce him to refrain from voting, does so at his peril; and that it is incumbent on an agent so acting to be sure that his facts are correct and his law is sound, for in the event of his being in error in either respect his candidate must suffer the consequences.

In the present case the right of these electors to vote was impugned on grounds which, on investigation, turn out to be without foundation in point of law and also in point of fact, and consequently the statement that they would be liable to prosecution, and would be prosecuted, if they exercised their franchises, must be regarded as the fulmination of an illegal threat, constituting a practising of intimidation within the meaning of the 95th section, which, by the same section, amounts to undue influence, and, being practised by an admitted agent, must make the election void.

I also agree with the Chief Justice that the election must be set aside upon the distinct ground mentioned by him, and for reasons in the main identical with those which his lordship has stated.

The returning officer only appointed Mr. Prieur to be a deputy returning officer after taking proper and prudent precautions to assure himself that Mr. Prieur, though an open partizan of the respondent's, would act properly at the election.

In the interview which the returning officer had with Mr. Prieur, preceding the appointment of the latter, reference was made to these voters mentioned in the report of the judge at the previous trial, and the returning officer exacted from Mr. Prieur a promise that he would not put any marks on the ballots, or do anything in any way to interfere with the votes of these men.

Mr. Prieur accepted the office on that promise and understanding, and otherwise it would not have been conferred upon him. Then what does Mr. Prieur do ? If nothin further had taken place than his reception of the notices when they were handed to him at the poll, his conduct would have been unobjectionable. Even if he had marked the ballots, there being no preconcerted arrangement that he should do so, his so marking them might, perhaps, have indulgently been attributed to ignorance or to misconception of the somewhat complicated law which regulates elections.

But we are precluded by the evidence from making these suppositions, for it is proved beyond doubt or question that in face of the caution he had received from the returning officer, and the promise he gave to act upon it, Mr. Prieur had, before the polling, a private interview and conference with Mr. Cornellier, the agent of the respondent, in which, notwithstanding his promise to his superior officer who had appointed him, not to mark the ballots, he agreed and conspired with Mr. Cornellier to do so.

This conduct of the deputy returning officers, pursued in privity with the agent of the respondent, and induced by the irregular and clandestine solicitation of that agent, constitutes a ground for setting aside this election, distinct altogether from that of intimidation and threatening, before disposed of, as being " a fraudulent device or contrivance impeding, preventing, or otherwise interfering wita, the exercise of the franchise"

of the voters in question s within the meaning of the provision of sec. 95, expressed in the words just quoted. In my opinion, a stronger exemplification of the evil which sec. 95 was intended to prevent than that of an agent of a candidate agreeing and conspiring with a returning officer to put a mark on the ballot of a particular voter, by which that ballot might be afterwards identified, could not be suggested.

My conclusion therefore is, that on both the grounds indicated the appeal must be allowed, and with costs.

J.

I am also of opinion that the election should be set aside for the two reasons given by the learned Chief Justice, for the intimidation which is proved, and also for a traudulent contrivance to interfere with the freedom of the election.

J.:

At an election held for this county in 1882, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of the previous member, two candidates, deBeaujeu and Bain the present respondent, had contested the seat. The result was a majority of three for deBeaufeu. This election, however, was subsequently voided for corrupt practices by de Beau/eu's agents.

A writ was then issued for a new election, which took place on December 27th, 1883, between the same candidates, Bain and de Beau/eu. Bain, the respondent, having been returned by a majority of three, the appellant contested his election by a petition in the usual form, without claiming the seat for deBeaujeu. After a long trial, the presiding judge dismissed the petition, and maintained the election. The petitioner now appeals to this court from the said judgment, limiting his appeal to certain cases only. E .orms Particular No. 96 is one of these cases.

It is in the u Taschereau, following terms. [The learned judge read the charge] (1). J. It appears, by the evidence on this charge, that shortly before polling day, Mr. Cornellier, who is admitted to have been the respondent's conducting agent, had a document printed in the following form: I, the undersigned, duly authorized agent of James William Bain, Esq., one of the candidates at the present election, object to the vote of of elector appearing on the electoral list of district No.

and who has come to vote under No.

of the voters' list of the electoral district No.

and for reasons in support of this objection, I declare, in my above quality, that I object to the present elector giving his vote, because, by judgment pronounced at Coteau Landing on the 6th October last, in the contested election case in which Stanislas Filiatrault, merchant, of Coteau Landing was petitioner, and G. . L. G. H. S. de Beaujeu was defendant, and inscribed under No. 3 of the records of the Superior Court sitting under the federal contested Elections Act of 1874 and Acts amending the same, said judgment pronounced by his honor justice Loranger, the said after notice duly served upon him and found sufficient by the said judgment after issue joined was found guilty of corrupt practices according to said act, and reported in consequence to the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, and consequently he has become a disqualified elector (scheduled briber) in the sense of the said federal contested Elections Act of 1874 and amendments, and for eight years, from the 6th October last, that he cannot vote at the present election.

I demand also the administering of the oath to the said elector, and also that the present objection should be endorsed on the ballot, which will be given (if any should be given) by the deputy returning officer placing on the back of the ballot (should he deliver one to said voter) a number corresponding to that of the objection, in order that the court may be enabled to revise his decision on a scrutiny.

It must be remarked here that this document contains a false statement, and that it was not true that (1) Ubi supra.

the electors, against whom it was prepared, had been disqualified or deprived of their franchise.

This document was made known throughout the county, and a copy of it left by Cornellier with each of j.

the respondent's agents at the different polls.

Those of the electors of St. Zotique, mentioned in the charge, who have been examined, had all heard of it, or been told that they had no right to vote, and their ballots would be marked, as demanded by Cornellier.

Before the nomination, Cornellier sent for a man named Prieur, who, it was supposed, would be the deputy returning officer at the Coteau Landing poll. Prieur's evidence as to what then passed between him and Cornellier, is as follows:

Q. Veuillez done raconter A la cour ce qui s'est pass6 entre M. Cornellier et vous? R. Je suis arriv6 le jour de la nomination, au soir, et M. Cornellier m'a dit qu'il d6sirait me parler. M. Filiatrault m'a introduit A M. Cornellier. M. Cornellier a dit: " Asseyez-vous; je vous ai fait demander pour vous donner des instructions concernant l'lection; on m's dit que vous deviez Ctre nomm6 officierrapporteur, et j'ai des instructions A vous donner": Et M. Cornellier a commenc6 ses instructions, il a commenc6 A me dire qu'il y aurait des votes d'objectis, et que ces objections seraient pr~sent~es par l'agent de M. Bain.

Q. Vous a-t-il mentionn6 le fait que ces objections devaient Utre imprimbes ou quelque chose ? R. Ces objections 6taient imprimbes dans le temps. Ensuite it m'a dit: "Lorsque quelqu'un se pr6sentera pour voter, vous mettrez la premisre objection qui vous sera pr~sent6e, objection No. 1, ainsi de suite pour les autres."

Q. Vous a-t-il mentionn6 quelques noms de personnes, A propos de ces objections dans le temps?

R. II m'a iuentionn6 Sraphim Deschamps, pbre. m'a dit: " Si Sdraphim Deschamps, pare, se pr6sentait," et ainsi de suite.

Q. Si je comprends bien votre r6ponse, M. Cornellier vous aurait dit de marquer cela sur le dos des bulletins ? R. Sur le dos des bulletins, et ensuite au d6pouillement, mettre les bulletins marqu6s avec les objections, les mettre sous enveloppe; en ayant soin de mettre sous enveloppe les bulletins 6cart6s. Et ensuite j'ai demand6 pour quelle raison. " La raison, c'est celle-ci, a t-il dit, c'est que les bulletins iront devant le juge, et le juge d6cidera si ces bulletins And this evidence is uncontradicted. Can one imagine conduct more reprehensible than this of a member of the bar, the respondent's chief election agent, so approaching a man whom he expects to be a deputy returning officer, in order to give him his instructions as to this officer's duties, and to tell him how he will have to perform his functions.

However, as to this Coteau Landing No. 1 poll, Coro nellier's gratuitous instructions to Prieur were of no effect, as another man Mr. Gladu one who knew his duty, was appointed deputy returning officer.

In the St. Zotique poll, however, Cornellier was more successful.

Here, Damien Prieur, an active partizan of the respondent, was named deputy returning officer. The returning officer, a man of integrity and against whose conduct nothing can be said, had made it a condition of this nomination that he, Prieur, would not mark any of the ballots as Cornellier desired them to be marked, telling him that such marking would be contrary to law. It was only on the promise by Prieur to follow those instructions of the returning officer, that ho was appointed deputy returning officer.

On the very morning of the polling day, however, he promised Cornellier that, as he, Cornellier, insisted that the ballots of those who were disqualified could be legally marked, EEON he Prieur would mark them. And he did mark them. asceeau.He did not hesitate to ignore the instructions of his J.

superior officer, and the promise he had made to get his appointment in order to put himself into the hands of the respondent's agent and obey his desires and dictations. His oath of office had evidently not deprived the respondent of a partizan.

What actually took place at the poll is as follows:- Prieur, before delivering ballots, to any of the objected voters marked on the back of the ballot the words, objected to by objection No.

" placing upon the ballot a number which corresponded with the number of the objection.

In this way, the eight ballots of the above named voters were marked with identifying numbers, and Prieur says he put them in his pocket. This was done in spite of a written protest from the opposing candidate's agents.

Hearing of this proceeding, the returning officer, in the afternoon, wrote a letter to Prieur, severely reprimanding him and telling him he would have to answer for his conduct.

On receipt of this letter, which was coupled with an order by the election clerk, who delivered it, to place it of record among the documents of the poll, Prieur handed it to Mr. Cornellier, who perused it; the other representative asked permission to see it, but this Prieur refused, and put the letter in his pocket where it remained.

After the close of the poll Prieur getting nervous, probably, and afraid of the consequences of his illegal acts, took out the eight objections produced before him and endorsed them "objection dismissed." He then counted as good the marked ballots which he had in his pocket and put them in this box. Mr. Champagne says they all identified the votes.

"Put the ballots in his pocket." That is what this deputy returning officer has to confess he did under the guidance of the respondent's conducting agent. And this in face of an enactment in which no one has ever dreamt of an ambiguity, that the deputy returning officer " shall then immediately, and in the presence .of the elector, place the ballot paper in the ballot box " (1).

As to the marking of these ballots, I need not say anything to prove its utter illegality.

It had to be admitted before the court by the respondent's counsel. Now, it seems to me, that it can hardly be possible to bring clearer evidence of fraudulent contrivances to prevent voters from exercising their franchise. That this agent's object was to prevent these voters from voting at all, if possible, is. made abundantly clear by a number of witnesses examined in the case, who all testify that he did not cease repeating publicly and privately during the election the false statement that these men had no right to vote ; that if they voted, legal measures would be taken against them; and that if they came to the polls, their votes would be objected to, and if received at all by the deputy returning officer, would be distinctly marked so as to be identified. These witnesses, however, on this only proved what the printed notice says in unequivocal terms.

This marking of the ballots at the instigation of the principal agent of the respondents, taken in connection with the notice issued by the said agent with the intention to prevent these voters from voting at all, or, if voting, from voting as their fellow citizens did, under the protection of secrecy guaranteed to them by the Ballot Act, was a fraudulent device or contrivance to impede, prevent and interfere with the free exercise of the franchise of these voters, and a corrupt practice under section 95 of the Act.

Whether or not this contrivance was successful, is immaterial.

And whether these acts of the respondent's agent affected the result of the election or not, is also immaterial.

A single act of corrupt practice by an agent avoids the election.

The contention that this election-agent acted in good faith and under the impression that these voters had really no right to vote, that he could legally ask from the deputy-returning officer the marking of their ballots, and the putting of these ballots in the deputy returning officer's pockets, and that consequently his acts should not avoid the election, cannot be admitted. When any one accepts for a candidate the responsibility of the complete organization and carrying out of an election, as this agent did in this county, he must be presumed to undertake that, as far as he himself and all those over whom he has any control are concerned, everything shall be conducted according to law.

He undertakes to perform the duties, and all the duties, of an election agent, according to 'aw, and he cannot later on be excused for any infraction of these duties, by saying that he ignored them ; is estopped from doing so. If he did ignore them, it is culpable negligence in him, of which he cannot take advantage; and to him with more force