CITY SOUTH LICENSING ELECTION.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 53, 16 March 1887, Page 2

CITY SOUTH LICENSING ELECTION.

Petition against Mr Harper's Return.

Mb H. G. Setii Smith, R.M., sat at tho R,M. Court this morning to hoar evidence and argument in relation to the petitio preferred by Messrs J. W. James, Thos Constable, J. W. Carr, Philip Crowe, Jaa

Renda'.l, and Ooorge Winstono against the return of Mr Goorgo Harper as a member of the City South Licensing Bench, en the eround "That some persons voted who were not entitled to vote, or gave more votes than they wero entitled to give at an election." They therefore prayed that Mr Harper's election should bo declared void. Mr C E. Button apr.oared for the petitioners,' and Mr Thomas Cotter for Mr H M_ e Button said that ho .would furnish Uii Worship with a list of the persons whose votes wero objoctod to. As separate objections applied to various groups of names, it would be convenient for the purpose of expediting matters to takethe c_.eb of one vote in ordor to determine each group. Tho first votes objected to were those of James Binsted and Garrett Bros., and m the«e the case would be expedited if the facts were admitted, leavine only the legal points to be argued Mr Cottdr replied that his learned friend had better proceed with the case. Mt Butto . had declined to admit sdmethmg which ho proposed. Mr Button rotor od ihat tho reason was because it was a question of substance, and not of form. ... Mr Cotter denied that it was so. Mr Button then proceeded to state that tho first voto objected to was that of James Binsted, whose name appeared dn the roll with the bracketed addendum[p.r James and Henry]. He submitted that a firm had no right to vote, and more especially ac in this case Henry B.nsted also votoL The vote of Wm. Garrett for Garrett Bros, was in tho same category. Tho next case was that of Thomas Cains, who was allowed to vote, and T. J. Cains refused tho right to vote, Thomas Cains eubsoouontly admitting that he was not the person en titled to voto. 1 Another oa.o was that of Mrs Davis, who, although entitled to vote refused to answer oertain questions prescribed by the let, and which tho scrutineer demanded should be put to her. True, the questions nrODOunded by tho scrutineer were not put to Olficer, but still that was no oxcueo for tho questions not being BD Mr e Coiur said that as City Solicito. ho was froo to admit that the Retarding Olficer had no rightitc.refuse t. put tbo questions alleged, if asked to do so by tho scrutineer. Mr Button went on to say that the next caso was that Of Jane J agger. The name of H Ja-'gor, wife of Samuel Jagger, appeared upon the roll as of a person entitled to vote. Y [ otJano Jagger, wife.of Frank Jagger appeared and exorcised that voto. Ibis wa_ on offence under the Act, but ho would not prose that, as he was informed that Mrs Jane Jagger oxerci«»d tho voto innocently, being persuaded that oho was entitled to do so Ho would not trouble His Worship with the case of John Lonergan, as ho had been erroneously instructed in r °Thc 'next co»o was that of a John Mills i (othoi than the John Mills upon the ro ), who voted in tho name of Dennis Mills. Then a voter named Nathaniel Morgan presented himself at tho pnlling-place, but found his claim jumped by a person named Samuel Morgan, who, when subsequently challenged, gave some excuse to Nathonial Morgan fur having voted. He submitted that if ho showed that five persons had voted irregularly, that wai. sufficient to upeet Mr Harper's election He would therefore ask Hib Worship to order the ballot papers to be opened—not in tbo first instance, to be looked at, but SO that the roll might be produced. Evidence was then adduced, Henry Hidings being the first witness called He staled that he was the Returning Olficer for City South, and that ho conducted a licensing election there on the 17th of February last, when Mesers J. Winks, C. Heskoth, H. Anderson, D. Goldio, and Geo. Harper were duly elected. Tho highest of the rejected candidates was .1. W. Carr, who polled four votes loss than Geo. Harper. James G. Carr acted as scrutineer for one of tbo candidate-, Richard U Hughes as scrutineer for another, and Alexander Thorne as scrutineer for a third. At that election someone voted in respect of roll No. 0-2, " Binsted, James; por James and Henry." He could not recollect if Henry Binsted presented himself to vote. In re_pect of roll No. 418, " Garrett Bros ," ho believed that the oldest brother of the firm voted. A vote was also recorded in roll No. 164, " Cains, T. J." Richard H. Hughes, scrutineer, depoecd that at the election in question a person named Thomas Cain, a confectioner.of Wei' lington street,voted. Ho did not challenge him at the timo, but spoko to him afterwards, when T. J. Cain s was refused the right to voto. Mr Cotter objected to any conversation which did not take place in M. Harper's presence being given in evidence. Mr Button contended that as it was for tho purpose of establishing identification, tho objection did not hold. As His Worship seemed inclined to support Mr Cotter, Mr Button did not press the point. Instead of doing so he called T. J. Cains, who was identified by Mr Hughes as the person who w.13 not allowed to vote. Thos. Joseph Ciins deposed that he was tho person whose name appeared upon the roll as " No. 161, Cains T. J., settler, Wellington Lane." At the City South LiconsiDg election on the 17th February last he received a voting paper, and voted. He was sure of that. (Laughter.) He could not say if objection wero taken to his vote, but something was said about another person of the same name having voted. He did not receive a votiDg paper and put it in the ballot box. Subsequently the witness, who seemed rather dull of apprehension, said ho received several pieces of paper—votes— some of each side, but did not put any of them in the ballot box. He was not a settler ; be was a cook (laughter). His namo appeared upon the roll as well as the other man's, but his name should be spelt Caines, not Caius. Mr Button: The other man's name does not appear. Alexander Thorno, one of tho scrutineers on tho occasion iv question, deposed that ho now knew the person who was entitled to voto in respect of roll number No. 164 (City South roll). Tho last witness was that person. Another person, who gave the name of Cain, voted on the 17th February, but the last witness did not vote because when be applied to do so he was told Bomeone had polled for that vote. The man who did vote was not last witness. Thos. Joseph Cains was tho registered owner of two brick buildings, and he was described in the deed as a cook. Mr Cotter pointed out that a statement as to the contents of a written document was not evidence. Mr Button submitted that he had now proved sufficient to justify His Worship to ordor the opening ol tbo ballot parcels for the purpojp of extracting votir.g paner No, 16i. It would not be necessary to compare it with tho roll until afterwards. Mr Cotter said it was a matter purely within the discretion of His Worship. The evidence of Tho?. Joseph Cains was contradictory. His Worship thought that exclusive of Cains's evidence there was sufficient evidence to warrant him to order tho extraction of the voting paperß. A prima facie cass had been established for this purpose. Henry Ridings, recalled, deposed that a person voted in respect ot Roll No. 92, " Biastcd, James [por James and Henryj, aud that a person also voted in respect of "No. 418— Garratt Bros," likewise a person in respect of "No. 164 T. J. Cains." There was no person of the name of William Garrett on the roll. Mr Button stated that Mr Cotter admitted that "No. 627 —H. Jagger" was a wrong vote, the wrong person having voted under a misapprehension. Mr Ridings (continuing) : A person voted in respoct of" No. 829—John Mills." There was no other John Mills upon the roll. A person also voted in respect of " No. 831— Dennis Mills ;" likewise a person in respect of "_50,.849 — Nathaniel Morgan." There was no other Dennis Mills and no other Nathaniel Morgan upon the roll. Nathaniel Morgan, mariner,of Sale-street, deposed that he was the person so described upon ihe City South ratepayers' roll. Ho did not vote at the licensing election on the 17th ult. He was refused the right to voto on tho ground that some one had already voUd iv that Dame. Ho was told who had .oted for him, and he spoke to that man tho nest doy. Jamus Guerre Catr dtposed that he wss one of tho election scrutineers on the day in quesiior. A man named Morgan, emp'oj..d a* a cook ou tho schooner Oisborne, but. not living in "Sale street, nor called "Nathaniel," voted in respect of "No.