The Megantic Election Case, (1884) 9 SCR 279

Supreme Court of Canada

Cote v Goulet, (1884) 9 SCR 279

Date: 1884-04-01

LOUIS ISRAEL COTE alias FRECHETTE

Appellant;

And

J. F. GOULET et al

Respondent.

1884: Mar 15; 1884: Mar 16; 1884: April 1

PRESENT Sir Wm. J. Ritchie, C.J., and Strong, Fournier, Henry and Gwynne, JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM 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. McM., 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 status 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 to take down the evidence were not extended in his hand-writing, but were signed by him.

Held 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

[Page 280]

money for anything? " K. then answered, "If you have any 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, " 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, re-member 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 $25 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 appellany'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 Meganlic.

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.

Mr. Crepeau Q. C, and Mr. Gormully, for appellant.

Mr. Irvine, Q. C., for respondent.

Ritchie, C. J.

The first objection is that petitioners were not candidates

[Page 281]

and have not legally proved that they were electors having the right to vote at the election to which M the petition herein relates, nor have they proved that those persons are electors, whom the defendant and 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 con-tested by " a person who had a right to vote at the "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 S, Lambly_t régistrateur du comté de Mégantic et secrétaire de la municipalité d'Inverness, et qui avait agi com me officier-rapporteur à la dite election, a comparu en ces dites quali-tiés. Il a prouvé le bref d'élection en vertu duqull il a agi, aussi la nomination de candidats et le rapport par lui de l'élection du défendeur.

Il a exhibé en ses susdites qualités officielles, 1⁰ la liste électorale originale pour le canton d'Inverness et il a prouvé que le nom de Lauohlan McCurdy était sur cette liste, en ouvrant la dite liste et montrant que ce nom y était inséré avec ses qualifications comme électeur. II a déclaré, de plus, connaItre personnellement McCurdy, l'un des requérants, depuis vingt ans. Ces listes sont faites en duplicata; les deux sont également des originaux; c'est sur le dupli-cata original du secrétaire qu'il a donné sa déposition à relativement à McCurdy. Ii hésitatt à produire cette liste au dossier, mais ii est prét à le faire si la cour l'ordonne. Nie l'un ni l'autre des parties no l'ayant exigé, la cour n'a pas été appelée à donner et n'a pas donné cot ordre. M. Lambly a exhibé en deuxiemè lieu la liste électorale do Somerset-Nord. C'est un original, dit-il, et on l'appelle un double duplicata. Au moyen de cette liste, ainsi exhibée en cour, il prouve les qualifications d'électeur des deux autres requéants Jacques Goulet, ferblantier et locataire, 8 lot, 8e rang, et Louis Richard charron et locataire, 8elot, Ge rang. Ilnait personnellement Louis Richard.

Los deux listes qu'il vient d'exhiber sont celles-là mémes qui ont servi lors do l'élection dont il s'agit. Elles sont soumises à l'inspec-tion do la cour et des parties. Le témoin est prét à placer au dossier la deuxième s'il en reçoit ordre do Ia cour.

Pour la memo raison quo ci-dessus, cet ordre n'a pas éé onné.

[Page 282]

Les objections faites par le défenderr à cette preuee à l'enquête, et réservées pour adjudication au mérite, ne sont pas fondées et elles sont renvoyées.

La preuve do la qualité des requérants est complétée par le l'emoi gnage du docteur Larose.

Les requérants ont prouvé légalement, de même, Ia qualité d'électeurs des personnes qu'ils ont prouvé avorr été corrompues à la dite election. La motion du défendeur présentée le 5 septembre dernier, à l'effet de faire rejeerr du dossier toute la preuve ci-dessus, n'est pas fondée et elle est renvoyée.

La cour rejette également une autre motion des défendeuss, pré-sentée à l'audition, demandant le rejet do l'equête des requérants, prise avant le 22 janvier 1883, alor que le dossier était hors de cour. La cour a deja affirmé, par un jugement interlocutoire, la légalité do cette enquête.

Le défendeur a "présenté a l'audition une troisième motion deman-dant le rejet do toute l'enquête des requérants, parce que les sténo-giaphss n'auraient pas, euxmêmes, copié les depositions prises par eux et parce quo ces depositions fourmillent do faussetés.

La cour rejette cette motion, 10 parce qu'il n'y a pas de preuoe à l'appui, 2° parce que ces dépositions sont certifiées 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:—

"ler Cas personnel do corruption.—Pendant le cours do la cabale électorale un jour ou deux avant le jour do la nomination, le dé-fenderr est parti en voiture, do Somerset) avec Jean Charles Beaudette pour aller travailler ensemble à l'élection. Ce monsieur Beaudette est l'ami intime, le partisan zélé du défendeurr et il est difficile à prétendre qu'il n'était pas autorisé par le défondeur à agir pour lui.

[Page 283]

Avant le depart de Somerset le défendeur mit entre les mains de Beaudette une somme de $100.00, pour les besoins de l'election. Ils se rendaient à Saint-Pieree de Broughton, L'objet de leur voyage était d'aller voir les personnes influentes sur leur route, pour les intéresser en faveur de la candidature du défendeur

Chemin faisant ils s'arrêtent à Leeds, chez un homme trés influent de Ia localité, M. James Kinnear; M. Kinnear est un liberal. Ie défendeur ne l'avait jamais ni vu ni connu; mais Beaudette avait eu quelquefois l'occasion de le visiter en qualité de commis voyageur. Une fois entrés, tout naturellement ii est question de l'élection. Kinnear dit au défendeur: ' Je n'aime pas le Docteur Olivier si vous étiez liberal je voterais pour vous ad lieu d'Olivier mais s'il n'en vient pas d'autres je voterai pour Olivier .' "

Le défendeur admet, dans son témoignage, qu'il est entré 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 défendeur s'informe de l'état de l'opinion relativement à l'élection. Kinnear lui répond que les gens là sont en presque totalité des libéraux, mais que le Dr Olivier n'est pas aimé dans Leeds et que, quant à lui, il est dispose à ne pas faire grand'-chose pour lui, qu'il voterait pour son parti mais qu'il ne travaillerait pas beaucoup.

La dessus le défendeur sort, sous le prétexte d'aller voir à son cheval. Resté seul avec Kinnear, Beaudette lui dit. A Avez-vous besoin de quelqu'argent pour votre église ? " Non, répond Kin near, Dieu merci, notre chapelle n'est pas en dette, et je n'ai pas besoin d'argent pour elle."

Refuse mais non rebuté, Beaudette revient à la charge. " Mais dit-il, vous devez avoir tout de même besoin d'argent pour une chose ou pour une autre." Kinnear lui répond: " Si vous avez de l'argent de trop, nous pouvons l'appliquer à bien des choses ici, par exemple, nous voulons bªtir un town-hall et nous sommes à court d'argent pour le faire."

Beaudette répond: " Vingt-cinq piastres ça fera-t-il ? " Kinnear lit: " N'importe ce que vous voudrez, c'est pareil pour moi."

Là-dessus Beaudette dépose $25.00 sur la table du salon Le dé-fendeur, sur cette entrefaite, rentre au salon: l'on se dit bonjour et l'on part.

Dans son examen, le défenderr prétend que Beaudette ne lui a fait part de ce don d'argent que deux ou trois jours après et qu'il n'en a pas entendu parler auparavant. Mais, outre l'invraisemblance de cette prétention, comment la concilier avec le fait qu'avant leur

[Page 284]

depart et pendant qu'on échangeait des bonjours. Kinnear leur dit à tous deux: " Gentlemen, remember that this money has no influence 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-self canvassing among people, as I formerly did,"

Le défendeur savait done alors et là Qu'une somme d'argent avait été déposée par Beaudette, et cet argent était celui du défendeur. Il n'a ni alors ni subséquemment répudié cet acte; au contraire, ii a continué, avec Beaudette, sa tournée électorale, et Beaudette a à sa connaissance travaillé pour lui jusqu'à la fin de Ia lutte. Il a done sanctionéé l'acte de corruption de Beaudette.

Ce cas si clairement prouvé de corruption et tentative de corruption serait suffisant à lui seul pour faire annuler l'élection et pour faire declarer que le défendeur s'est personnellement rendu cou-pabee de manœuvres frauduleuses au cours de sa dite election.

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, Côté's evidence is clear and conclusive on this point, notwithstanding what Beaudet says:—Côté's language is as follows:–

Q. Je vous demande si à part de. vos dépenses personnelles vous avez dépensé d'autre argent ?—J'ai paéé de l'argent à Beaudet et à Jean Charles Beaudet.

Q. Beaudet était-il un de vos agents ?—Non.

Q. Combien d'argent avez-vous donné à Jean Charles Beaudet ?—

R. A peu prŁs cent soixante-quinze ($.175.90) à deux cent vingt-cinq ($225) piastres pendant Ia lutte.

Q. Vous lui avez donné cela lpour les fins de l'élection ?—R. En différents temps: je. ne me rappelle pas exactement le montant, c'est peut-être moins et peut-être plus.

Q. Etiez-vous avec Beaudet cette fois-là ? R. Oui, la premiere fois que je suis monte, j'y ai été rien qu'une fois.

Q. Vous étiez avec Beaudet ?—R. Oui.

Q. Le même M. Beaudet auquel vous avez donné deux cent vingt-cinq 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

[Page 285]

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. Vous êtés entré la parceque vous saviez qu'il n'aimait pas le docteur Olivier ? R. Oui je voulais le voir. Quand on fait le tour du comté ou va voir les principales gens de la place. C'etait la première fois que j'allais à Leeds. * * * * *

Beaudet says:

Quand je suis arrivé chez M. Kinnear j'ai introduit M!. Fréchette à M.Kinnear, et M. Fréchette a dit à M. Kinnear vu qu'il se présentait comme candidat que c'était son devoir d'aller le voir comme citoyen.

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 on such a visit to an utter stranger as Frechette was to Kinnear, that his companion Mr. Beaudet a commer-cial traveller, who, as such, it would seem, often called at Kinnear's place, should wholly apart from the elec-tion, or any influence it was to have on the election exhibit such reckless anxiety to get rid of, not his own, but Frechette'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

[Page 286]

of goods, not to dispense it gratuitously, on a social visit, nothing in the conversation tending to such a 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 elec-tion Purposes, and of the conversation "with Kinnear immediately preceding the offer in which Kinnear indi-cated 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, Frechette and Beaudet called, and that, finding him still in the same state of mind which Kinnear in no way dis-guised 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, remember 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

[Page 287]

Kiinnear pure and simple, and I am equally unable to bring my mind to the conclusion that Frechette was 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 majoritv 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; equally 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 of 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 to 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

[Page 288]

cast aside the experience of life and while we must not presume guilt, we must from the facts and circumstances presented for our consideration arrive at the conclusions which our common sense, our knowledge 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.

Coté's account of the interview with Kinnear is as follows:—

Q. Vous avez été, comme vous avez dit, avec M. Beaudet en voiture, et vous avez visité plusieurs des électeurs en cabalant avec lui i R. Oui.

Q. Êtes-vous allé à Leeds avec lui ?—R. Oui.

Q. Etes-vous allé au moulin de Kinnear?—R. Oui.

Q. Êtes-vous entré chez Kinnear avec lui ?—R. Oui.

Q. Avez-vous resté tout le temps dans la chambre avec lui quand il a parlé a Kinnear ?—R. J'ai sorti pour voir à mom cheval, j'ai laissé M. Kinnear et Beaudet dans la salle.

Q. A-t-il été question avec Kinnear de vous supporter dans l'élection, quand vous avez parlé avec lui ?—R. Non.

Q. Lui avez-vous parlé d'élection ?—R. J'ai parlé par rapport à la lettre qu'il avait envoyée à M. Piteau. M. Kinnear m'a dit: Je n'aime pas le docteur Olivier* Si vous étiez liberal 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 été favorable ? R. Je savais bien que Kinnear est liberal: j'allais le voir comme confrere de magasin.

Q. Vous êtes entré la parce que vous saviez qu'il n'aimait pas le docteur Olivier ?—R. Oui. Je voutais le voir. Quand on fait le tour du comté on va voir les princicpales gens de la place. C'était Ia pre-mière fois que j'allais à Leeds.

Q. A-t-il été question en votre presence de bâtir une halle, une salle publique dans la paroisse ?—Non.

Q. Après que votre cheval a été prêt Beaudet vous a rejoint ?—R. Jo suis rentré chez Kinnear, il était après parler avec Beaudet.

Q. Et Beaudet est resté avec vous ?—R. Oui

Q. Beaudet vous a-t-il dit quelque chose par rapport à certaines vingt-cinq piastres ($25.00)?—R. Il m'a dit cola quelques jours aprés.

[Page 289]

Q. Quand?—R. Je crois que c'est trois ou quatre jours après.

Q. Qu'est-ce qu'il vous a dit ?_R. Ii m'a dit qu'il avait donné vingt-cinq piastres ($25.00) à M. Kinnear pour lui aider à bâtir un townhall.

Q. A part des deux cent cinquante piastres que vous avez données au comité de Somerset, et des deux cent vingt-cinq piastres à Beaudet, cent soixante-quinze piastres à deux cent vingt cinq piastres à Beaudet et à part de vos dépenses personnelles avez-vous donné d'autres sommes d'argent pendant l'élection et pour l'élection ?—R. Pas Que je me rappelle. Oui, j'ai donné cinquante piastres ($50.00) au comité de Sainte-Julie quo j'ai envoyées pour les dépenses légales, les orateurs, etc.

Q. A part vos dépenses personnelles et de l'argent que vous avez donné à Beaudet. avez-vous donné d'autre argent pendant l'élection, ou depuis, pour l'élection ?—R. A part de ce que j'ai donné à Beaudet, j'en ai donné au comité do Somerset,

Q. Combien?—R. Deux cent cinquante piastres ($250.00) à peu pres, je ne puis pas dire an juste, c'est pour payer les dépenses du comité, j'ai donné environ deux cent cinquante piastres, deux cents à deux cent cinquante piastres, j'ai donné en différents temps.

Q. Qu'avez-vous dit ? - R. Peut-être ce n'est pas bien. Il dit, j'ai donné ça. ce n'est pas du tout pour l'élection, c'est pour bâtir un townhall.

Q. Et vous étiez satisfait ? R. Je n'étais pas pour les retirer. Ce n'est pas moi qui ai donné l'argent.

Q. C'était votre argent?—R. Jo ne sais pas.

Q. Vous ayes donné quelle somme d'argent à Beaudet ?—R. J'ai donné neuf cents piastres ($90 ).00) en partant de Somerset et la balanee en différents temps jusqu'au montant de cent soixante-quinze piastres ($175.00) à deux cent vingt-cinq piastres ($225.00).

Q. A-t-il rendu compte do cela ?—R. Non.

Q. Vous no lui avez pas demanéé non plus ?—Non.

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

Q. Vous étes, si je ne me trompe pas, commis voyageur, c'est-à-dire quo vous vendez à commiussion pour des marchands do gros do Montréal, et cela depuis do nombreuses années ?—R. Oui, depuis dix-sept (17) ans.

Q. Et durant ce temps-la avez-vous eu occasion do faire connaiussanee avec M. James Kinnear ? — R. Oui, je le connais depuis nombre d'années, et je suis allé le voir.

Q. Durant la dernière élection vous êtes entré chez lui avec le dé* fendeur "M. Fréchette ?—R. Oui.

[Page 290]

Q. Et vois dites que dans ce temps-là ii y avait bien des années que vous faisiez des affaires comme commis voyageur et que vous en aviez fait beaucouip avec lui ?—R. Oui, beaucoup avec lui et avec son fils aussii

Q. Vous étiez sur un pied d'intimité, je presume, avec M. Kinnear?

Q. Avant d'entrer là, M. Beaudette, a-t-il été question entre vous et M. Fréchette de quelque chose au sujet de votre visite à M. Kinnear ?—R Pas du tout. M. Fréchette m'a demandé d'aller avec lui il m'a dit: " tu connais bien des gens." Je lui ai dit: c c'est bien, " et nous sommes partis tous les deux, et nous avois été à plusieurs places. Quand je suis arrivé chez M. Kinnear, j'ai introduit M. Fré-chette à M. Kinnear, et M. Fréchette a dit à M!. Kinnear, vu qu'il se présentait comme candidat que c'était son devoir d'aller le voir comme citoyen.

Q. Si je vous comprends bien, avant d'aller voir M. Kinnear, vous n'aviez fait aucun complot entre vous et lui pour tendre des em-bCchss à M. Kinnear ?—Non.

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

Q. Voulez-vous dire si le défendeur Frechette était present et a eu connaissance de cette conversation entre vous et M. Kinnear à propos de cette souscrition ?—R. Non, M. Fréchette, n'était pas dans Ia maison quand j'ai parlé avec M. Kinnear.

Q. Lorsque vous êtes enbarqué avec M. Fréchette, M. Kinnear a-t-il dit quelque chose pouvant donnera comprendre M. Fréchette qu'il avait reçu quelques libéralités pour lui ou sa municipalité ?— R. Non; quand je suis sorti avec M. Fréchette, la voiture était attachée à peu près à une cinquantaine de pieds de la porte; comme on revirait avec la voiture, M. Kinnear a sorti sur le perron et a dit: " Ne passez pas chez mon fils James sans arréter le voir." C'est ce que nous avons fait.

Q. Pendant que cette affaire de souscription s'est passée, M. Fré-chette était dans le jardin ?—R. Ii était en dehors; j'ai remarqué qu'il avait un jeu de croquet où il y avait des dames et M, Fréchette était avec elles à s'amuser; c'était à côté de la maison, on les voyait par le chassis, mais iis ne pouvaient pas entendre la conversation.

Q. Quand M. Fréchette est venu vous rejoindre pour embarquer,M. Kinnear, tout cc qu'il vous a dit est ccci: N'oubliez pas d'aller chez mon fils James ? R. C'est tout cc qu'il a dit.

And then we have the evidence of Kinnear:—

Q. Do you remember the member elect, Mr. Fréchette₎ in com-

[Page 291]

pany with Beaudet, going to your house while the canvass for the election was going on ?—A. Yes, they both came.

Q. Was that before or after the nomination day ?— It was before.

Q. It was a day or two before ?—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 conversation which took place with Fréchette in the first instance at your houee?—A. Frechette 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 Fréchette 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. Baaudet 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 —I said for my part I was not going to interfere a great deal in this election. 1 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 Liberal party» but not exert myself as much as in former elections. Then Fréchette 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. Then Beaudette said, I think, " Will twenty-five dollars do ?" I said " Whatever you like, it is nothing to me." I think he took twenty-fire dollars and left it on the parlor table. And after this happened Mr. Frechette then came in, and when I was 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 myself canvassing among people as 1 formerly did.

Q. These last remarks you made in the presence of Mr. Fréchette ? A. Yes, they were both going away, and I was bidding them good-bye, and I said " Now, remember this has no influence with regard

[Page 292]

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 Town Hall ?—A. No, it still remains there, and 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. Fréchette called at your place that he said because being himself a trader that he 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. Fréchette, I had not known him before.

Q. I mean, you say that you were an old trader, and he Mr. Fré-chetee 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. Fréchette 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 Fréchette being in your village would not have called ?—A. I could not say for that, the only thing is I have no acquaintance with Frécthette but having acquaintance with Beaudet they might have called. 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 Fréchette, of the twenty-five dollars that had been left by Beaudet ?—A. No mention whatever after what mention I made of it.

Re-examined.

Q. When Fréchette came back to the room, and you accompanied

[Page 293]

them out of their vehicle, they were going away, you then made, ii I understand you rightly, in the presence of Fréchette, a reference to the monev that had been left and said the monev 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 to it I do not know whether they understood it.

Q. Could Mr. Fréchette 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. Fréchette 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 Fréchette and Beaudtt 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 Cole: " Lui avez-vous parlé d'élection ? " R. " J'ai parlé par rapport à la lettre qu'il avoit envoyée à M.

[Page 294]

Piteau," clearly inferring thereby that he was acquainted with Kinnear's feelings.

Then, so soon as Kinnear had made apparent his dislike, as still existing, to the candidateship of Olivier, 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 tinder 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, Beaude's extraordinary reply to Kinnear that he, Kin-near, should have need of money for one thing or another totally indifferent to Beaudet, so that he got Kinnear to take Fréchette'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 Fréchette on the spot by Kinnear as they were leaving, and Kinnear's evident intima tion to Beaudet and Frechetee 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 Beaudet informed him of the particulars of the transaction a day or two after: " Q. Et vous etiez satisfait. R, Je n'étais Pas

[Page 295]

pour les retirer; ce n'est pas moi qui ai donné l'argent,t 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 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 Frechette'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 Coté's expenditures. He admits that the election cost him $1500. He thinks there are accounts still to come in. At pages 38 and 39 he says:—

Q. N'avez-vous Pas dit à M. D'Auteuil, le curé d'Ireland, que votre election vous coétait quinze cents piastres ($1,500.00) ?—R. Je ne me rappoele pas de cela J'ai dit que l'élection d'Olivier devait coûter à peu près quinze cents piastres ($15500.00). Jo no me rappelle pas d'avoir dit que la mienne coûtait quinze cents piastres ($1,500.00). Je sais bien quo j'ai parlé de $1,500.00 (quinze cents piastres).

Q. Jurez-vous positivement que vous n'avez pas dit à M. D'Auieull quo votre election vous coûtait à peu pres cela ?—R. Jo ne puis pas juror cola. Je puis avoir dit que ça avait coûté à peu pres quinze cents piastres ($1,500.00). Jo puis peut-être avoir dit cola, quo ç'avait coûté à peu près cela.

Q. N'est-il pas à votre connaissance qu'il y a une foule de comptes d'élection qui ne sont pas venus encore et qu'on attend que ce procès-ci soit fini pour régler ?—Je ne sais pas.

Q. Pouvez-vous juror quo ce n'est pas à votre connaisaance personnelle qu'il y a do ces comptes-là ?—R. D'après moi je crois qu'il y a quelque compte à venir, je no sais pas.

[Page 296]

Q. Pourriez-vous m'en nommer?—R. Je ne sais pas quelle sorte de comptes.

Q. Pourriez-vous m'en nommer quelquesuns?—R. Les comptes de Saint-Pierre et de Prince, je ne les ai pas eus. Les comptes, je no puis point les nommer.

The account of Fréchette's Election Agent is as follows:

Etat des dépenses légales d'élection de Louis Israél Côté alias Louis Israél Fréchette, candidat élu à l'élection, le 20 juin 1882, pour la Chambre des Communes, dans le district de Mégantic. Pour argent déboursé et payé comme suit:—

Pièce No 1—	Compte de	B. Tippens orateur	$75 00
“ “ 2—	“	A. McDonald orateur	33 00
“ “ 3—	“	MoffatI orateur.	10 00
“ “ 4—	“	J. B. Rousseau	10 58
“ “ 5—	“	J. Chassé, orateur	75 00
“ “ 6—	“	J. G Prince, orateur	45 00
“ “ 7—	“	P. G Bourke	15 00
“ “ 8—	“	S. Larochelle.	31 55
“ “ 9—	“	Edouard Fluet	3 50
“ “ 10—	“	L. J. Piteau orateur	100 00
“ “11—	“	Dépenses personnelles de L. I. Fréchette	95 00
“ “12—	“	Compte de V.A. Bérubé	110

 

$494 73

Date à Maple Grove, ce 18 août 1882.

(Signé) SIMEON LAROCHELLE,

Agent.

The absence of any account being rendered by Ftbchette or his financial asent of the payment of this and other monies to Beaiidet, 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

[Page 297]

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 conduct ing the election all prevent a favorable view being taken of Frechetle's conduct in reference to this transaction, 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.

STRONG 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 anneal dismissed "with costs

FOURNIER 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, 38 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

[Page 298]

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 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 avoided 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 learned counsel for the appellant has, upon this appeal, submitted to the correctness of the judgment of the learned judge, in so far as it proceeds upon the acts of the agents of the appellant committed without his knowledge and consent, and has disputed the judgment only in so far as it finds that any bribery or corrupt practice was committed by the appellant personally, or by any agent of his, with his knowledge or consent, the object of the appeal being to get relief from the disqualification of the appellant incident upon the judgment of the learned judge.

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. land 19, inserted in the bill of particulars annexed to the record, which are as follows :

1st. That the appellant gave from two hundred and fifty to three

[Page 299]

hundred dollars to one Jean Charles Beaudette, with whist to com* mit 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 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, Beaudetts, had the fullest opportunity of explaining their version of this transaction; indeed, they and Kinnear 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 nécessairement sa place. C'est que le défendeur a étonnement varié dans les diverses dépositions et déclarations qu'il a donnes. La cour déclare sans hésitation qu'elle croit de son devoir d'attacher plus de poids aux admissions, affirmations et explications contenues dans les réponses du défendeur à 1 interrogatoire en chef plutôt que dans ses depositions subséquentes faites exparte et qui décèlent le besoin et le désir d'amoindrir sinon d'anéantir complètement la preuve de faits compromet tants, preuve, résultant d'un témoignage long et minutieux donné à plusieurs reprises, en pleine connaissance de cause, en toute liberté sans la moindre pression de précipitation, et sans le moindre prétexte de défaut de connaissance de cause le défendeur bénéficie déjà suffisamment d'un défaut de mémoire bien remarquable dans son premier interrogatoire.

Now that Beaudetle 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 he no doubt. That the money placed

[Page 300]

by the appellant in Beaudette's hands was so placed for purposes of corruption, and to be expended in a manner similar to the manner 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 hail 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

[Page 301]

were on the envelope. Porter could stave no satisfactory 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 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. It was contended, however, by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the finding of the learned judge as to the purpose for which the money was sent was a different purpose from that alleged in the charge, the latter being " pour faire de la corruption" and the finding of the learned judge being, that the payment of a sum of $10 for a service which was worth only $3 or $4 " et envoie de $20 ont servi a acheter l'influence et les services de Porter."

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 Porler, which, as I understood the learned counsel for the appellant is the construction put by him upon the language of the learned judge; but it may be that the words " ont servi à 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 ap

[Page 302]

pears 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 pro enouncing his judgment to be erroneous.

Appeal dismissed with cos's.

Solicitor for appellant: Eugene Crépeau.

Solicitor for respondents: Joseph Lavergne.