CHARGE AGAINST THE REGISTRAR.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 56, 6 March 1903, Page 5

CHARGE AGAINST THE REGISTRAR.

DIFFICULTIES LN THE POLICE COURT."

The City Registrar. Mr. John King, was summoned to-day at the Police Court, before Mr. T. Hutchison, S.M., for knowingly and wilfully omitting to place, ihe. name of William. Richardson on the electoral roll .or Auckland City. Mr. Sinclair represented the complainant, while Mr. Blair appeared for the defendant. - Mr. Sinclair explained that the offence was merely technical, the defendant having omitted to place Mr. Richardson's name on the roll, whereas he could show that Mr. King wa.s not entitled to -take it off, and had committed a breach of duty. Mr. Richardson gave evidence to the effect that he left Auckland for Australia jin December. 1900, for a lecturing tour, I and returned in August, 1902, to find that j his name had been taken from the. roll. |He never had any intention of settling I down in Australia, and had never been able to get an explanation as to the reason why the name had been taken off the j roll. | In reply to Mr. Blair, witness stated j that his wife and a portion of his family i were in Sydney, and since he had been away he stood for Parliament in Sydney. He denied that on the day he left, when he was convicted of using insulting language and ordered to find two sureties of £ 100 each for twelve months, he urged as a reason why sureties should not be required, the fact that he intended to leave the colony permanently. Mr. Sinclair remarked that his ca.se was that his client had not been absent three years, and bad always been domiciled in Auckland. A difficulty arose in proving the case. as Mr. Blair objected to admitting a number of facts which were essential. His Worship allowed Mr. Richardson to be recalled to complete the case by answering a question as to whether he knew he was off the roll at present. Mr. Richardson sententiously replied, '"'Oh! everybody knows it in Auckland!" Mr. Blair urged that the wrong course had_been taken. The complainant shonM have issued a mandamus in the Supreme Court against "Mr. King ro show cnuse why he should not be nut upon the roll. Another technical difficulty arose over the form of the information, which charged Mr. Kin? with ••omitting." whereas His Worship suggested that rather than omitting Mr. King had "done something." Mr. Blair also raised an objection on the ground that the application for reinstatement was not properly witnessed. '•This point is a little too thin." remarked TTis r'>vfdiin. Mr. Blair's next point was that Mr. Richardson's domicile was as his wife lived there, but His Worship pointed out that Mr. Richardson expressed the intention of return-ng to the colony. i The wife's domicile was not the husI band*. (Proceeding.') i