RAGLAN ELECTION

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 67, Issue 158, 17 April 1947, Page 4

RAGLAN ELECTION

STRAIGHTFORWARD CONDUCT COMMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE (P.A.) HAMILTON, April 16. “From what has come before the Court so far, I have not seen any ground for a suggestion that there has been anything other than straightforward conduct on the part of any witnesses,” said the Chief Justice (Sir Humphrey O’Leary) thie afternoon, shortly before the court rose after the third day of the petition by Mr Hallyburton Johnstone concerning the result of the Raglan election. The Chief Justice’s remark was prompted by the statement of one witness that he had acted in a completely straightforward manner in recording his vote at Raglan. The witness. in this case was Thomas Whalley, an airman, who, after a series of changes of address within a short space of time, commenced duty at the R.N.Z.A.F. station, Te Rapa, on October 7, 1946. Whalley explained that when he saw an electoral officer in Wellington before taking up duties at Te Rapa, he was advised to enrol for the electorate to which he was going. Counsel for both the petitioner and the respondent made it clear that their questioning had not been intended to imply that Whalley had acted other than straightforwardly. Although the wanted witness had been sought in the South Island, he. had not so far been located, with the result that it had not yet proved possible to subpoena him, said Mr R. E. Tripe, one of the counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the hearing of another case this afternoon. The missing man was Godfrey Albert Tomlinson, of Huntly, a miner, whose right to vote in Raglan had been challenged by Mr Hallyburton Johnstone on the ground) that Tomlinson had not completed three months’ residence in the electorate at the time of the general election. After evidence had been heard by other witnesses concerning Tomlinson’s arrival in Huntly last year, and hie starting work in the mine there, Mr Tripe asked that the case be held over. Mr R. Hai’die Boys, for the respondent, Mr A. C. Baxter, asked why the voter concerned was not being called in this, as in other cases. Mr Tripe then explained that Tomlinson could not be found at the moi ment, and the Court agreed to hold the case over. Most of the afternoon was occupied wth taking evidence of what is rapidly becoming routine concerning the domicile of those whose votes have been challenged.

Shortage of Voting Papers

Reference to the shortage of printed voting papers reported to have occurred at Taupo on the day of the general election was made, during the case concerning George Joseph Davis, a lorry driver, of Glen Afton. The petitioner objected that Davis and his wife, Dorothy Violet Davis, had removed from Raglan and qualified in another electorate. Davis’s own vote was objected to on the further ground that he made no declaration in the prescrbed form. • In evidence, Davis said that he left Glen Afton about July last year, worked for some time in Aria, and moved to Taupo on October 2, 1946. On election- day he voted by postal vote in Taupo for Raglan, and he believed hie wife did likewise.When the wtness left the box, counsel for the petitioner indicated that their objection would rest on residential ground. Counsel for the respondent, however, asked that as formal objection had been lodged concerning Davis’s declaration, evidence should be heard on the matter. •Mr T. P. O’Leary, for the respondent, said that on election day a polling booth in Taupo ran out of printed ; forma of all kinds, not only those for - postal votes, with the result that voters were handed *forms made out in' pencil, which strictly speaking were not declarations at all. Davis received one of these pencil forms, although hi* wife, who visited the "Tiooth at a different time of the day, did not. Davis, recalled by Mr Cleary, was handed a pencil form for scrutiny. Davis identified his signature on it, but said the other handwriting on a sheet of paper handed to him by counsel was not his. The pencil form in question had been handed to him in The Taupo polling both .by Mr Howard Hill, deputy returning officer there or by one of the staff in the-booth. > The Court agreed that argument' concerning the use of pencil forms for voters’ declarations might be heard, later if counsel desired. .. J.‘, FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD TRAVELS OF PENSIONER (P.A.) HAMILTON, This Day. Voters to whom objection had been taken on the bround that they had resided for less than three months in Raglan at the time of registration or of the closing of the rolls were among the first witnesses called when the Electoral Court resumed to-day. Evidence was heard on three such cases, but a fourth, listed under this heading by the petitioner, was struck out at the request of Mr W. J. Sim, K.C., chief counsel for Mr Hallyburton Johnstone. One witness heard was an elderly pensioner, Edward Baucke, who was permitted to sit beside the witness box instead of standing in it. His replies to counsel’s questions were scarcely audible, leading Mr Justice Blair to ask Mr A. L. (appearing for the petitioner) to ‘ turn yourself into a gramophone” for the purpose of repeating the replies by witness. The evidence by Baucke, who lor.merly lived at Taupiri, detailed hm frequent visits in recent years to i elalives in different parts of New Zea land, and had occupied some time before, under cross-examination, he mentioned a visit paid last Christmas. “I hope there are not many Mr Baucke’s following, or we shall be here until next Christmas,” observed the Chief Justice, Sir Humphrey O’Leary. Baucke’s examination ended shortly afterwards. It was suggested by counsel for respondent tliat an elector such as Baucke w T bo, although at the time of

the election had been more than three months outside Raglan, for which lie registered some years ago and claimed to have established no home elsewhere, was still qualified for Raglan, as he had not been removed from the roll in any electoral purge.