By election law the doctrine of agency is carried further that in other cases.
By the ordinary law of agency a person is not responsible for the acts of those whom he has not authorised, or even for acts done beyond the scope of the agent's authority ... but he is not responsible for the acts which his alleged agents choose to do on their own behalf. But if that construction of agency were put upon acts done at election, it would be almost impossible to prevent corruption.
Accordingly, a wider scope has been given to the term "agency" in election matters, and a candidate is responsible generally, you may say, for the deeds of those who to his knowledge for the purpose of promoting his election canvass and do such other acts as may tend to promote his election, provided the candidate or his authorised agents have reasonable knowledge that those persons are so action with that object.
[7] (1874) 2 O'M&H 100.
[8] See for example Westbury Case (1869) 20 LT 16 and Tewkesbury Case, Collings v Price (1880) 44 LT 192.
[9] See for example Stalybridge Case, Ogden Woolley and Buckley v Sidebottom (1869) 20 LT 75.
[10] See for example Great Yarmouth Borough Case, White v Fell (1906) 5 O'M & H 176.