HARBOUR BOARD ELECTIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 52, 2 March 1909, Page 7

HARBOUR BOARD ELECTIONS.

__- to Dr es= yesterday, the J- H- Bradney, _@!K_S__a Harbour Board _ec--8 { L C -- Se "^ e: _E___: Mr Baume, XX-, ror .ux. n fte examination of proxies for ' which were *~ ™ • =™.rd to disputed -proxies. r-oxmaUy proved ■T. TV? ihe disputed pro_.es lacked the company, and inecommon seai_ui r admitted that the Jt m =eal of the company was not fge pro*v, but the question was whe- .°£% the seal « the SL-sas in-reusable to make it valid. fiied that the clause in the Act JS Ss pearissJve but dadnot delegal methods ol vocmg pro..3J?4eSt«*W6. All the AC SiM _< was this: it made it quite I *__ a vote given upon a '■ given.mider the common seal wa= East bat it did not prove that a vote gS jnider any document purporting IS riven ussier the authonty ot the \±_____W, bm; not bearing the common Sfws invalid. It would have to be CitHs'v shown that the document KapuT was not, m »«. •** Qhci&r. If » was. he contended that _ vote given under St must be considered |jg_ g WK e held otherwise, re would - Slow that =o act. even to the engaging 1 a junior clerk, was -legally *bin<nng «_ 4e company unless done under the !c£siaa seaL 'But aH sorts oi valid acts . rSIB done under a company's authority : cftiumt h-ng done under the common $_, Euffiel! said aH he was concerned a ascertain -was that there was no asses Son oi improper conduct against he returning officer. iMx- Eettte said there was aosolutely io sugaestion that Mr. Prime had not teen perfectly honest and straightforfsrd acconfiig to his lights, though he ipmrr. gossshly 'he ignorant of some law IffiSlfe. ' Seplring* to Mr. Stanton. Mr. McGregor _i. he must contend for the necessity _ a common seal being attached to the jrnxr given -by a company authorising in individual to vote on its behalf. The aw provided that only persons on the rail can vote at _l election. In the case „ a conmany the vote must be deternnied by' lesohrtion of the directors: jai to prevent the cumbersome method -taking ihs directors down to the :_i_g —ioi3L there to pass a resolution a the presence of the returning officer, &c LegisattEe 'had declared that in the sse ox companies, and companies only. „mo * Trrtghr. he effected by a proxy jren under the corporate seal of the ontpany. That was the explicit declaraion of "the law. To give a proxy bearag the ordinary business stamp of a <rrnpany was not a compliance with the

QI law. I ■__ Baume, who on Saturday had irgned on the lines followed by Mr. Canton. sa_L. an;eT careful consideration. Ie had come to tie conclusion that he r. not advance the argument strong__eed, careful consideration had

arrinced _—i that unless companies foliwed the actual provision of the law

iftes cast must be Considered bad. Hs Worship said he would reserve his easktn, as this was a very import-ami omt. The fact that a proxy bore the om-mrm seal would toe prima facie cvi- j ence that it was good, but not coninsve evidence. Evidence in. rebuttal | ' I the presumption might be led. But _ _trther question whether a common I _1 was indispensable on the proxy was' nether matter. He -would consider the aesiion. * j Mr. _a_ae said he would ask his "Wor-' nip to consider the further question —ether the bad proxies materially aiBct_. the result of the election. If that estrlt was not materia—y affected, then here was nothing more to be said. His Worship said that would necessisx his p-xa.Tni-nrng ihe voting papers, .ad ne did not ___c it -desirable to do —st 2it could be avoided. He believed a the secrecy of the ballot. ■ Noting was a ■persona.l thing, and though iot_ng would, of course, leak out, ho iid not think it desirable that he and ie clerk should know 'how everyone had 'osea. Sri Stanton submitted that that was mt the view taken by -the Legislature. 3ie view of the Legislature was that it ras extrenely undesirable to upset the "ssnlt of an _ection if it could be avoided. He therefore si—Knitted that it was pc faty of the magistrate to go through jß_ votes, separate from. them the informal votes, and then determine whether the result was affected or not.

I Mr. Kettle said he recognised that he tad a discretionary power, but he ploughs it inadvisable to exercise it if 6s could avoid doing so. | H. D. Heather, of Heather, Roberton, Kn4 Co., stated that he received a n_—.per of proxies to vote, some bemg signed p Ha__

! To Sac Baume-: Mr. Bradney came to jnis office in connection with a proxy, /and asked that the vote under that j taoxy should foe given to him. Mr. BradI aev told him he had been in conversation Wi the person who gave the proxy. James H. Bradney. recalled by Mr. Sfcfiregor. said the statement made by previous winness was absolutely untrue. He had never discussed the matter in Si? manner with Mr. Heather, and he eid not know the firm said to have sup"Slied" the proxy. a.,?? Baume: He was aware before |ac Section that proxies were being used. ™iyit was not till after the election ™at' le learnt that the proxies were Slegal. *

To Br. Stanton: He had had no comipaßation wrßi "Mr. Claude Heather before the election, and did not rem»mber ™l£ gentleman saving that Shaddock's ■rate was aU right. As far as he was conpsrned, tie whole statement was a coneoeaan.

To "Mr. McGregor: He came to the con-1 r°fj? j- I ** irregularity existed when he I .«*■ pAsk proxies being given to anyone ! Win-wanted one. " " "I closed petitioner's case. *psrs. Baume, Stanton, and Russefi eat tney would not call evidence. [ 'Mr. Banme said he desired to address eZ. ft/ 1 ca t3le of procedure. g?e OT or €0 proxies had been admit«a ■bad % As that was a number in extne number separating uh e lowest j rV -iTA tl -? hest candidate, if his Wor- ! *?'PMd tnat -Us vitiated the election. •«e course was plain, and the question '«£ costs arose. ! Ult^ saii so fer as ne could «*- te &™ coots i____V and the Court rosi