maximum amount (i) allowed by the Act, or for replacing any money expended in any such payment or expenses, except where the same may have been previously allowed as an exception, is guilty of illegal payment. As to what expenses may be legally incurred, see ante, p. 189. ILLEGAL PAYMENT. rupt with didature. By section 11, any person who corruptly induces or For corprocures any other person to withdraw from being a drawal candidate in consideration of any payment or promise from canof payment, is guilty of illegal payment, as is also any person withdrawing in pursuance of such inducement or procurement. banners, &c. Any person who makes a payment in contravention of For bands, section 12, is guilty of illegal payment, as is also any cockades, person who is a party to any contract for such payment, or receives such payment, if he knew the same was made contrary to law. This section forbids any payment, or contract for payment, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate, on account of bands of music, torches, flags, banners, cockades, ribbons, or other marks of distinction. But the giving or providing bands of music, torches, &c., is not prohibited; this section only prohibits any payment or contract for payment on account of them. An expenditure by the election agent of 27. 18s. upon hat cards at a parliamentary election avoided the election, because they were held to be "marks of distinction" within the corresponding section of 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51, and the Court refused to grant relief: Walsall, 4 O'M. & H. 137; Day's El. Cas. 109. These cards were returned by the election agent as (i) There is no maximum except at municipal and county council elections. See ante, p. 197. ILLEGAL "hat cards"; a reduced facsimile of one of them is PAYMENT. given below: In East Clare, where certain cards were held not to be marks of distinction, O'Brien, J., commented adversely upon the Walsall case: 4 O'M. & H. 163; Day's El. Cas. 164. : differed as to whether and, therefore, marks of In Pontefract the judges certain cards were hat cards, distinction see 4 O'M. & H. 200; Day's El. Cas. 127, 130. There was evidence that they had been used as polling cards as well as worn in hats. Below is given a reduced facsimile of the card. Reckitt X Printed and Published by E. W. Hepworth, Aire Street, Knottingley. PAYMENT. Hawkins, J., distinguished these cards from those in ILLEGAL the Walsall case, inasmuch as the latter were made, ordered, and used as hat cards, and paid for by the respondent's election agent with the knowledge of the use made of them, and of the purpose for which they were ordered: 4 O'M. & H. 200; Day's El. Cas. 127. It will be noticed also that the shapes of the two cards materially differ. banners. In Stepney, 4 O'M. & H. 179; Day's El. Cas. 119, For strips of canvas stretched across the street from houses on either side were held to be "banners" within the corresponding section of 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51, but the Court granted relief. Vaughan Williams, J., further held that for a banner to be within the section it must also be "a mark of distinction": 4 O'M. & H. 181; Day's El. Cas. 123. rosettes. In Pontefract, a charge in reference to certain yellow For rosettes which were used at the election failed on the ground that there was no evidence of payment, or contract for payment, of them: Day's El. Cas. 127. In Hexham it was said that the payment of bands for For playing before the election was not an offence: Day's El. Cas. 95. A payment made to a voter on account of damage done by a banner, or for the loss of his hat at a meeting, is not an illegal payment: Stepney, 4 O'M. & H. 39. The object of this section was stated by Cave, J., to be the prevention of extravagant expenditure upon such things, and the acquisition thereby of popularity: Stepney, 4 O'M. & H. 179; Day's El. Cas. 119. But according to Pollock, B., its object was to prevent the banding of persons together under party badges: Walsall, Day's El. Cas. 110. If any person is engaged or employed in contravention of section 13, either before, during, or after an election, the person engaging or employing him shall be guilty of illegal employment, and the person so engaged or employed shall also be guilty of illegal bands. ILLEGAL EMPLOY- ILLEGAL employment if he knew that he was engaged or employed in contravention of this Act: sect. 13 (2). EMPLOY- Who may be employed. Under this section no person is, for the of purpose promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at a municipal election, to be engaged or employed for payment or promise of payment for any purpose or in any capacity whatever, except as follows: (a) A number of persons may be employed, not ex ceeding two for a borough or ward, and if the number of electors in such borough or ward exceeds two thousand one additional person may be employed for every thousand electors and incomplete part of a thousand electors over and above the said two thousand, and such persons may be employed as clerks and messengers, or in either capacity; and (b) One polling agent may be employed in each polling station (k): Provided that this section shall not apply to any engagement or employment for carrying into effect a contract bona fide made with any person in the ordinary course of business. This proviso would seem intended to cover such cases as the employment by an advertising agent of men to post up election bills and notices pursuant to a contract between himself and the candidate. The payment of persons, who have other duties elsewhere, to do clerical work, or to deliver bills at an election, was said by Cave, J., not necessarily to make them clerks or messengers within the meaning of the corresponding section of 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51; if done to avoid the provisions as to the number of clerks and messengers to be employed, it would be an offence: Pontefract, Day's El. Cas. 129. It was assumed without question, in Walsall, that, (k) The provision as to one polling agent for each polling station applies to municipal, county council, and school board elections; but as regards the other elections has been modified. See ante, pp. 56, 63, 69, 76. EMPLOY MENT. for good reason, clerks might be substituted for others ILLEGAL during the election, provided that on no one day the maximum number of clerks was exceeded, although the total number of persons employed as clerks during the whole election did exceed the maximum number of clerks allowed by the Act: Day's El. Cas. 73. It is illegal to employ for payment canvassers (Stepney, Day's El. Cas. 119) or persons to keep order at meetings (Ipswich, 4 O'M. & H. 72), or "workers" (Barrow-in-Furness, 4 O'M. & H. 78). Where at a meeting the respondent agreed to provide What refreshments on the polling day to 441 persons, who amounts to employwere called "workers," and who afterwards took an ment." active part in the election and partook of the refreshments, the Court held that there had been an employment and engagement for payment within the section, and that an illegal practice had, therefore, been committed: Barrow-in-Furness, 4 O'M. & H. 78. In that case, Field, J., said, "The persons who heard what was said at the meeting went away with the assurance in their minds that they were to have refreshments. If on the polling day they had found there were to be no refreshments, would they not have said it was a breach of faith and a breach of contract? It was argued that there was no evidence of any particular contract between man and man. But the law implies a contract from conduct, and I therefore cannot help coming to the conclusion that there was on this occasion an employment of these men." amounts to Canvassing, i.e., the soliciting of votes, is frequently What carried on under the guise of registration. A registra- canvasstion agent must necessarily inquire as to the politics of ing. voters, but if he solicits their votes for a candidate he becomes a canvasser: Stepney, Day's El. Cas. 119. The employment of 300 persons with canvassing books ostensibly for registration purposes was, in Rochester, regarded by the judges as colourable, and, if bribery had been charged in respect of it, they would have found the charge proved: Ibid. 102. |