ELECTION PETITION.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 8187, 1 June 1892, Page 6

ELECTION PETITION.

A petition against the return of Mr ] Frank Peter, of Anama, as a' member of j the Rangitata Road Board, was heard before \ Mr Wray, R.M., at Ashburton, yesterday, i The grounds of objection were:—l. That en irregularity occurred in the proceedings which tended to defeat the fairness of the election. 2. That the candidate was not capable of being elected to or of holding the office to which he was declared to be elected. 3- ThaVpereons voted who were not entitled to vote, or gave more votes than they were entitled to give at an election. Mr Donnelly appeared for the petitioners, E. Taylor, a candidate, and G. H. Sewell and D. Kellahan, electors. Mr Purnell for the respondent. Wiiliam Simpson, Returning Officer at the election, stated that he had made up the roll from the valuation reli and the ratepayers' roll. Had found that the previous roll was old and irregular, and had compiled a new one. Compiled the ratepayers' roll partly from the valuation roll aud partly from information he had gathered while engaged in collecting a rate in the Rangitata district. The roll had been signed by the Chairman of the Board. C. J. Harper was one of those who voted at this The roll was produced. The name of Wiiliam Henry Varker, per C. J. Harper, was on the valuation roll and in the rate book.

C. J. Harper said he was Chairman of the Rangitato Road Board, and that he had *Isj acted as Clerk. Had taken Mr Simpson'e v-ord that the roll was correctly made up, and had signed it. The name of Donald Fraser was not on the roll supplied by the Property Tax Commissioners. It had been put on since, and initialed by witness on an application being received by the Board from the National Mortgage and Agency Company. Witness had not voted in respecc to Mr H. Packer's qualification, nor on behalf of any one but himself. The alterations with reference to Traver and Richarde' names were also made in the rate book. Mrs Peter and Frank Peter had both paid rates at tile time of the election. Frauk Peter stated that his name was on the roll as occupier. Was not the owner of any of the sections in respect to which his name appeared on the roll. Mr Puruell here contended that if Mr Peter's name was on the roll, whether rightly or wrongly, he \r»s entitled to vote, and also to stand 83 a candidate for a seat on the Board, and that the Court could not go behind the roll. Mr Donnelly contended that while the roll was conclusive as to the right of those on it to vote if the roll was made according to law, it was not conclusive in regard to candidates. The roll was conclusive only for the sake of cdnvenience.

After argument, his Worship overruled the objection, and said he would not go behind the roll.

The Court tbeis adjourned for an hour. On resuming, his Worship said, as the matter was of public importance, he would look into the cases cited on behalf of the petitioner. Mr Donnelly said he also intended to contend that the votes of Mrs Peters and her three sons were void at common law, and contrary to section 39 of the Road Board Act. The Anama estate was split up for the purpose of creacing faggot vo,tes. Examination of F. Peter continued l —The property referred to on the rate roll was part of the Anama estate. He had paid rates on it, but declined to say whether it was his own money or not. Objected to say whether he had any sheep or stock of his own on the property for which he had paid rates, and in respect to-which he had exercised his vote.

Jane Peter stated she was the owner in trust of the Anama estate. She had not meddled with the property, and it was the same now as when it was left in trust.

Mr Donnelly contended that the roll, a copy of which the Returning Officer used, was no roil at all. " The roll" in the Local Elections Act meant a' roll made according to law. The valuation roll produced was not made in accordance with law. 16 was full of alterations made in pencil. Ail these alterations were- not initialled by the Chairman as they should hare been in accordance with section 10 of the Act. It was, therefore, uo roll at all, and was conclusive of nothing. Mr Purnell, in refcly, contended that the Court must confine itself to the point as to whether Mr Frank Peter had been duly elected. If Mr Donnelly's contention as to the irregular nature of the roll was relied on it might void the whole election, whereas the Court was only asked to deal with, the position of Mr Frank Peter. The roll used was the roll that had been sigued by the Chairman, and he still maintained that the Court could not go behind it. The case was then adjourned till Thursday, June 9th.