PROPOSED BOROUGH OF RICCARTON.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 10482, 21 October 1899, Page 4

PROPOSED BOROUGH OF RICCARTON.

COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY. The enquiry into the petition for, and the counter-petition against, the formation of a borough of Riccarton was resumed before the Commissioner, Mr H. W. Bishop, at Addington, last night.. Evidence with respect to the signatures to tlje counter-petition," and as to the qualification of the signatures, was given by J. S. Wearn, J. Middleton, T. Doyle, "C. M. Harrow, and R. Wicks. W. Johnson gave evidence to the effect . that a few signatures had been obtained to the petition prior to January 23rd, and after ■ January 18th, and that the petition had been • . j in circulation till June 30th. James Denliam, a "canvasser for the counter-petition, stated that to his knowledge his wife had not obtained signatures to the counter-petition. The Commissioner informed the witness ' ' that Mrs Jordan had stated that it was at _urs Dei-ham's request she had signed it. Witness stated that he knew nothing about this, nor did he know for what reason his wife had visited Mrs Jordan on Monday night. Mrs Denham stated that she had got no signatures-to either the present or the pre-" vious counter-petition, nor had she handled the present counter-petition. Mrs Jordan must have got confused when she said that witness had taken her signature. Witness had taken the names of a. few who were in favour of the counter-petition. She had known Mrs Jordan for about five years, and " her opinion was-that Mrs Jordan seemed- _ capable of exeAiang a sound judgment.! - '.' The Oc<n—n'ssianer said that Mrs Bkjwer, who also knew Mrs Jordan', had said r thafe - * witness had acted wrongly in approaching J her for her signature, as she was incapable of exercising a sound judgment.. This concluded the evidence. ,- : . ~ '..'- The Commissioner said he had been unable _" to decide with respect to the stamping of the J declarations, nor had he received, any reply | from Wellington on this point. T&e. matter would be for the Crown law officers to -'* "i decide. He had no doiibt that counsel were :. aware what signatures would or would rfot be allowed. Some were clearly effectivei! -""■_ others were not. He would submit to the. Governor the facts in connection with S. A. Staples', evidence as to not having verified *< two signatures, which he had in a sworn ' '[ declaration stated that he had verified. In ■ *" closing the enquiry, the Commissioner thanked counsel for the assistance they had rendered him. .' ■ ~. The enquiry then closed. ;