§ Mr. SPEAKER
I have to inform the House that I have received the following Certificate and Report from the Judges appointed to try the Election Petition relating to the election for the Drake Division of the Borough of Plymouth:—
§ In the High Court of Justice,
§ King's Bench Division.
§ The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1883 and 1895,
§ The Representation of the People Acts, 1918 to 1928.
§ In the matter of the Election Petition for the Drake Division of the Borough of Plymouth.
§ Between: Nicholas John Pethick Revington and Andrew Treeby Easterbrook, Petitioners,
§ James John Hamlyn Moses, Respondent.
§ To the Right honourable
§ The Speaker of the House of Commons.617
§ We, Sir Rigby Philip Watson Swift, knight, and Sir George John Talbot, knight, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges on the Rota for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England and Wales,
§ Do hereby certify, in pursuance of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, and the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879, that upon the 17th 18th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th days of October, 1929, we duly held a court at the Guildhall, in the borough of Plymouth, in the county of Devon, for the trial of, and did try, the election Petition for the Drake division of the borough of Plymouth wherein Nicholas John Pethick Revington and Andrew Treeby Easterbrook were the petitioners and James John Hamlyn Moses was the respondent.
§ And, in further pursuance of the said Acts we certify, that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that the said James John Hamlyn Moses, the Member whose election and return were complained of in the said Petition, was duly elected and returned at the election held on the 30th May, 1929.
§ And, whereas charges were made in the said Petition of corrupt and illegal practices having been committed before and during the said election, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report—
§ I. As to Corrupt Practices.
§ 1. That no corrupt practice was committed by or with the knowledge or consent of the respondent at the said election.
§ 2. That general bribery as alleged in the Petition did not prevail before or during the said election.
§ 3. That Albert Casanova Ballard was guilty of the corrupt practice of incurring expenses on account of issuing advertisements without being authorised in writing by the respondent's election agent for the purpose of promoting and procuring the election of the respondent in contravention of Section 34 of the Representation of the People Act, 1918.
§ II. As to Illegal Practice.
§ 1. That William Alexander Miller, the election agent of the said respondent, was guilty of the illegal practice of failing to transmit to the returning officer a return respecting the election expenses of the respondent in accordance with the form set forth in the Second Schedule to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, as required by Section 33 of the said Act.
§ 2. That Henry Mitchell Moore Linsdell was guilty of the illegal practice of having made payment for the hiring of a carriage for the purpose of the conveyance of voters to the poll, in contravention of Section 7 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.
§ 3. That Ernest Freeman was guilty of the illegal practice of employing a public hackney carriage for the purpose of the conveyance of electors to and from the poll, in contravention of Section 14 of the said Act.618
§ 4. That the said respondent was not by himself or by his election agent guilty of illegal practices at the said election under either Section 7 or 14 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.
§ 5. That there is no reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices extensively prevailed at the said election.
§ 6. That certificates of indemnity have been furnished to the said Albert Casanova Ballard, Henry Mitchell Moore Linsdell, and Ernest Freeman in respect of the abovementioned corrupt and illegal practices in pursuance of Section 59 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.
§ 7. That ah authorised excuse has been granted to William Alexander Miller, the respondent's election agent, in respect of the illegal practice of failing to transmit to the returning officer a return respecting the election expenses of the respondent in the form set forth in the Second Schedule to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, as required by Section 33 of the said Act.
§ A copy of the evidence and of our judgment, taken by the deputies of the shorthand writer of the House of Commons, accompanies this our certificate and Report.
§ RIGBY SWIFT.
§ G. J. TALBOT.
§ Philip Clark,
§ Registrar of the Court.
§ Dated this 25th day of October, 1929.
§ Ordered, "That the said Certificate and Report be entered in the Journals of the House."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
§ Copy of Shorthand Writer's Notes laid upon the Table by Mr. Speaker.