TIKE CITY NORTH LICENSING ELECTION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIV, Issue 4326, 28 March 1884, Page 2

THE CITY NORTH LICENSING ELECTION.

The Petition Dismissed.

All the Other Petitions Withdraws.

In the E.M. Court this morning, there wasa fair attendance to hear the judgment upon the petition against the validity of the recent licensing election for City North. Messrs Edwin and Samuel Hesketh appeared for the petitioners, Mr Theo. Cooper for the persons petitioned against, and Mr Thos. Cotter for the Returning Officer (Mr Ridings). His Worship Mr H. G. Seth Smith, in delivering his judgment, began with the remark that the whole of the proceedings in connection with the election had been marked by irregularities, but to his mind none of them tended to defeat its fairness. The only ground to be considered was the first one, viz., whether notice of the place of election had been given. His Worship then went on to read and compare Sections 5, 7, 10, and 13 of the Regulation of Local Elections Act, in which the word " election "is used in different souses. Section 13, however, was the one relied upon by the petitioners, and from it, it appeared that under certain circumstances, at any rate, the day of nomination or the act of nomination might become the election ; but it still remained an open question whether one was bound to interpret it by the other parts of the Act, or bound to take the word " election," as used in the 13th Section, as conclusive upon the meaning of tho - 50th. And saying that the nomination might become the election, it did not necessarily follow that tho election throughout the Act included or meant the nomination. The 14th section was decisive upon this point, viz. : "If the number of candidates exceed the number of offices then to be filled, the Returning Officer shall forthwith give • public notice of the day on which the yoll is to be taken of the names of the several candidates, and of the situation of the polling booths. The day on which the poll is to bo taken shall be the day appointed for holding the election as hereinbefore provided." It was certainly a remarkable circumstance that, notwithstanding this section, there was no previous provision in tho Act with reference to the holding of the election. It was provided that fourteen days' notice should be given of the election, but no provision whatever was,made in the Act for appointing a day for holding tho election. Now, so far as the proceedings in licensing matters was concerned, this was carried a little further by the 4th Sub-section of tho 13th Section of tho Licensing Act of ISSI, which provided that "As soon as conveniently may bo after the constitution of a district under this Act, the Returning Officer shall, by public advertisement, appoint some convenient day, and thereafter in the same month in every year, but not earlier than fourteen days after the first publication of such advertisement, for the election of the required number of members of the Licensing Committee within such district; and such election shall ba conducted in the same manner as elections of members of Borough or County Councils or Road Boards are elected." There was, ■ however, provision for appointing the day of election. It was to be held within certain months in the year, and not less than 14 days after the first publication of the advertisement. But the proceedings that had to be taken under the Regulation of Local Elections Act must be all taken before the day appointed under the Licensing Act for the election, and therefore these proceedings were somewhat different from the " election" mentioned in tho 14th section of the Regulation of Local Elections Act, and as mentioned in the 4th sub-section of the 13th section of tho Licensing Act of 1881. In the last part of the 14th section of the Regulations of Local Elections Act it stated that " the day on which the poll is to be taken shall be the day appointed for holding the election as hereinbefore provided.' This clearly showed that the day of the election was the day for voting, and that tho other proceedings were regarded as preliminary and as leading up to the election, and not as the election itself.. Turning to tho 50th section of the Regulation of Local Elections Act, sub-section 1 i it was there provided " That if any notice of tho time or place of an election, or the situation of the polling booths, was not given within the time or the manner herein required the election should be void. The Act did not require'the place of election to t>o where the nomination was. It' was silent there u'pen the point, so that it was impossible for him to say that an error had been made in this case ?n the appointment of a place of election when it seemed that the Act made no provision in tho matter. It appeared to him that according to tho 50th section the election is tho time when the poll takes place, and the notice of that-was sufficient. 'The contention- of the petitioners, therefore, that tho nomination was the same as the election could not be supported by the terms of the Act. On comparing this Statute with tho English Ballot Act of 1872, he felt confirmed in the view he had taken. That Act, in its first schedule, contained a series of rules to be observed during elections, and the provisions contained in these rules, if inserted }n our Act, would fee conclusive in an opposite way to the decision at which he had arrived, for there th'p nomination was the same as the election. It was perfectly, clear under the Ballot Act

that the nomination was the election, or the commencement of it,.power being given the Returning Officer "to adjourn the election to a subsequent day, on which a ballot will be taken ;" but in our Regulation of Local Election j Act there was no such provision whatever. The day of election was appointed in the first instance, and that was the day on which the poll was to be taken. He did not see that he could come to any other conclusion than that the election was regarded as the day on which the poll was to be taken, so that there had been no irregularity with regard to the time or place of election or the situation of the polling booths. The firstground, therefore, taken in the petition against the election was not supported; consequently the petition must be dismissed.

Mr Cooper asked, under section 55 of tho Regulation of Local Elections Act, that the costs of the Licensing Committees might be allowed. He said that of course there had been irregularities—and very grave irregularities too —in the election, but they were notthefaultofthepersonspetitionedagainst. They hail been brought to the Court by the patitioners, and although His Worship had held that there had been irregularities, yet they were not sufficient to invalidate the election. He might also draw attention to tho fact that the petition was not by the unsuccessful candidates, but that for some purpose certain persons had thrown it down as a challenge to the Licensing Committees to substantiate) thoir position, and therefore they had fairly rendered themselves liable for the costs.

Mr E. Heskcth replied that the very same argument might bo used for refusing the application, seeing that the petitioners had succeeded in proving some of the irregularities they complained of. It might very fairly be said that any person, whether a defeated candidate or not, had a right to attack the election, and none of them could regret that this action had been brought, "because it gave the assurance that in future the elections would be conducted according to the law. They had achieved this much : they had provided some security and safeguard for elections being conducted properly in future. Mr Cooper said that he had forgotten to mention that very serious allegations of a more personal nature had also been made by the petitioners, viz., that the Committee had used intimidation or violence to prevent voters from voting against them. They had advanced indiscriminately all the allegations specified in the Act. His Worship thought that the Committee had been brought there to answer charges madeagainstthem which, although errorshad been unearthed, had yet proved insufficient to upset the election ; they were entitled to costs. If people took upon themselves to risk the upsetting of an election on such grounds, they should not expect to bo relieved from paying the costs when they failed.

Mr Cooper then requested His Worship to fix the amount of the costs.

His Worship then fixed the costs at £5 us. Upon the application of the learned counsel, the hearing of the petitions against the elections of the Licensing Committees for City South and East, Karangahape, and Ponsonby was adjourned till 2 o'clock. Mr Hesketh said that tho decision on the City North election might possibly govern the petitioners' action in respect to the City South, Karangahape, and Ponsonby elections, but, at any rato, the City East petition would bo proceeded with. The Court then adjourned.

On the Court resuming, the Karansahape potition was called on. Mr Hesketh inquired if His Worship, in Ilia judgment this morning, disposed of tho objection against the election, on the ground that as the district specified in the Returning Officer's report was not correctly described. He had not complied with the Act in giving notice either as to time or manner of election. In tho notico given on fche'Bth February, the names of the districts were set forth in the first column, and therein the Karangahape district was styled "Karangahape Ward." He had not heard His Worship say that even this objection would not avail. His Worship replied that he had not said anything about it, but he took it as of no avail. It came under the first sub-section, but if it had come under the sixth subsection instead, and it had been shown to have tended to defeat the firmness of tho election it would have proved fata). Mr Hesketh said in that case he would withdraw the Karangahape election petition. It was. accordingly withdrawn, and £3 3s coats allowed the Licensing Committee. A similar procedure was followed with regard to^ the City South and Ponsonby petitions. Mr Hesketh said that with regard to tho City East petition, it was based upon evactly the same grounds as advanced in the other petitions, however, the principal one being that the poll at the said election was open beyond the hours specified in the Mr Cooper stated that he was quite willing to admit in this cose all the proofs tendered in support of th« City North petition. He would also admit that the petitioners were all persons qualified to petition, Mr Hesketh: Do I understand Your Worship to say that upon the same materials you would give the same judgment as you delivered this morning.- I mean that were I to argue the objection as to the notice of election, your judgment would be the same ? H.U Worship : I suppose so, unless you showed that it defeated the fairness of the election. . Mr Hesketh : I cannot give any evidence to show that it interfered with the fairness of the election, and that being so, I do not think that I shall proceed with tho City East petition either. This petition was therefore also withdrawn, and £3 3s costs allowed.