REGULARIIY AT ELECTIONS.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 1850, 27 June 1874, Page 3

REGULARIIY AT ELECTIONS.

In the Auckland Supreme Court (in banco) on Wednesday, the case of Harris y. Crispe came on for argument:—This was a proceeding by quo warranto, for a rule nisi to call upon Mr Joseph Crispe to show under what authority he holds a seat in the Provincial Council. — Mr Gillies moved that the rule might be made absolute. Mr Bees to show cause. —Mr Rees argued that in the first place, it was not enough merely to show that one person had not a majority of votes uuless it was also shown that another person had. The matter, it would appear, would turn upon the vote of Thomas Hyland, if the eight persons' claims of right to vote because their names were on the roll for the House of Representatives were allowed. Thomas Hyland's affidavit was to the effect that he intended to vote for Harris, and to the best of his belief he did so. The vote being illegal and given for Harris, it would have to be struck off, and should tlie other eight votes be counted to Harris, ho would only have 70 votes, as against 71 in favour of Cripse. The statement on the other side-of the belief that Hyland voted for Crispe—was neutralised by his own affidavit to to the contrary. Mr Sees also submitted that the eight persons who claimed to vote had no right to vote at the late election. It was absolutely necessary that the names of persons claiming to vote should be on the electoral roll for the provincial district before the Returning Officer would be in the position to receive, or they in the position to tender their votes. Thejright of these parties to vote had been based upon the second section of the Provincial Elections Act, which reads as follows: —" The electoral rolls for the House of Representatives shall be conclusive evidence of the right of persons whose names shall be thereon to vote at the election of Superintendents of Provinces and of members of Provincial Councils, as hereinbefore provided." In accordance with the 3rd and 4th sections of tho Provincial Elections Act, 1858, and the different sections—especially the 70th and 37th sections—of the same of 1870, it was contended that as a matter of principle it was necessary that the voter's name should be on tho provincial electoral roll. The name being on the roll for tho House of Representatives was only conclusive evidence of the right to be on the roll for the district, which was the guide for the reception or rejection of the votes in relation to that district. If the name was not upon the district roll the vote could not be givon. He submitted that the questions of fact with regard to Hyland's vote must be taken as against the mover, and that with reference to the question of law,. the eight gentlemen claiming had. no right to vote.—Mr Gillies replied: He asked the Court to observe that the statute of 1858 was specially for the purpose of amending the law relating to elections, and that it was especially intended to regulate the right of voting. The second section stated that the name being on the electoral roll of the House of Representatives should be conclusive evidence, not of the rightto have the names placed upon therollhereinafter mentioned, but to vote at the elections of members of the Provincial Councils as hereinbefore provided; and that this was the very statute which provided for the other rolls being made up. It was manifestly the intention of the Legislatura to make the rolls for the House of Representatives final and conclusive evidence of rights to vote, and it merely provided the splitting up of these rolls into separative legislative rolls as matters of convenience. In the case of the rolls for the House of Representatives there was power of revision given; but there was no such provision in regard to the provincial rolls, and the electors were not parties to their names being put upon the several rolls into whioh tlie roll for the House of Representatives was divided. It was, ho considered, clearly the intention of the Legislature that the provincial district rolls should have no validity beyond being guides to the Returning Officer for the time being, but that the absolute right to vote should be determined, as by the socond section, by the fact of the parties being duly registered upon the roll for the I louse of the General A.ssembly, With regard to tho other (jueatioa, not aweae that he

voted for Harris. The probabilities were entirely against his qualified assertion, and at least it was left in the position of a disputed fact, which could only be determined by the production of the voting papers. He submitted that it was clearly a case that should go to a jury.—His Honor reserved his decision.—Herald.