THE ASHBURTON PETITION.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11461, 20 December 1902, Page 5

THE ASHBURTON PETITION.

MAGISTERIAL PROCEEDINGS.' Proceedings in connection with the peti tion lodged with a view to having th Asbburton local option poll declared voi< were oomroenoed at the Magistrate's Cour yesterday, before Mr C. A. Wray, SM Following is a summary of the grounds se out in the petition: — In the matter of the regulation of Loca Elections Act, 1876, and in the matter o the Licensing Acts, we, the undersigne* electors of the Electoral and Licensing Dis triet of Ashburton, hereby declare that w< verily believe that at the Licensing Poll holden in the said district on the 25th da; of November last, at which the propose that no licenses shall be granted in the sai< district wad declared to be carried, the eai< poll is void upon the foLowing grounds lamely.— 1. That notice of the time and place o the said Licensing Poll, and of the situatio! of the polling booths was not given withil the time or in tihe manner required by lew. 2. That the said Licensing Poll was op« beyond, and was not open within th« houn required by law. 3. That "the provisions of Section 7, sub section (1) (F) of the Aicohdlk Liquors Sal* Control Act Amendment Act, 1895, wen not complied with, inasmuch as the votinj papers and the ballot papers were not giver to the voters simultaneously, at more thai one polling place. 4. That the provisions of section 124, subsection 2, of the Electoral Act, 1902, were not complied with, inasmuch as th« voters did not show the Returning Officei the official mark on thear voting papers before depositing the same in the ballot boxes. 5. That the provisions of Section 120 ol the Electoral Act, 1902, were not comp.ied with, inasmuch as persons, other than & returning officer, were allowed to speak to voters in the polling booths, "and to ask questions and give general directions to assist voters to give their votes. 6. That at certain polling places the provisions of section 119, subjection 7, were not complied with, inasmuch as more than six voters were allowed in the polling booths a.l one and the same time at other than the hour for closing the poll. 7. That the Deputy-Returning officers at certain polling places frequently left the said polling places without duly appointing a substitute as required by section 112, of the said Electoral Act. 8. That certain electors were refused to be allowed to vote at the said licensing poll, although flieir names were on the Electoral Roll of the said district. 9. That the said poll was improperly held, inasmuch ac there was no valid roll for the electoral district of Ashburton. . . Mr Stringer, Mr Wilding, and Mr G. M. Watson appeared for the petitioners. Mr Harper appeared for the Rev. T. Pee, an elector, and Mr Russell appeared for the Rev. J. Rain," also an elector. Mr Purniell nppeared to watch the case on behalf of, Mr T. W. Taylor, the returning officer." The Magistrate, at the opening, pointed out that there was nothing to ebow that the signatures to the petition had been duly attested before a Justice of the Peace 01* Magistrate, and this would raise the point as to his jurisdiction. Mr Stringer replied that the petition had not been so attested. He proceeded to submit that it was not necessary, and further stated that he wiehed to call one formal witness, and then ask for an adjournment. His Worship decided to allow the case to be opened, but would reserve the pom' he had raised. ■■ :, ' \ After argument by counsel on both sides, ! T. W. Taylor, the" returning officer, wan called, and" gave formal evidence, end produced the certified roll under which he had conducted the , election. Mr Stringer said that in the Wakanut petition case some years ago, the language of the Act was conclusive regarding tht roll, as that case came under the Electoral Act. Under the Electoral Act much more discretionary power was given to a Magistrate. A different principle was laid down under the Regulation of Local Election? Act. Counsel here quoted the case of Bastings v Stratford and law points at issue thereon. The Electoral Act was n&i incorporated, and when they came to consider the proper conduct of the th?y would have to go to the Regulation of Local Elections Act. In the cose, the question was the keeping open or shutting of booths at th© proper time. If that election were a local instead of a general oue it would have had to be declared void. An enquiry, he submitted, was condupted on very different lines to an ordinary elee* tion petition. With regard to the exclusion of particular voters from the.roll, he would prove that they were on the roll in 1899. In th© making up of a fresh roll the Act provided thafc tbeitf names fifhouid be left on the roll, and in this case it had not been done. The only way of taking' i person off the roll was by an objection,' in which case notice wouM have to.be, given # to the peirson objected to, and the Magistrate who would have to hear such - objection in the* Revision Court. Seeing that these persons were on the roll for , 1899, they liad a perfect right to assume that their names were on the roll for the. last election. Under Section 52 of the Act under notice, a good many names could be struck off without) notice, but according to sub-section 2 of the Act, a period of six months would have to elapse. Absence from the district was not a proof that an elector had left the district. In the Wakanui case they were dealing with a roll that had been prepared for the first time, and therefore the position there was that if electors' names were not on the roll it wm due to their own negligence. In that case, matters were entirely different from this petition. Counsel submitted that his Worship could -enquire jnto the circumstance* connected with the petition. Counsel asked that if supposing the returning' officer had failed to make up a supplementary roll, could his Worship enquire into that? He (Mr Stringer) submitted that he could. In the case before the Court not a men error had occurred, but a deliberate infraction of the expressed provision of ths Statute. Mr Harper said that bis learned friend had submitted that his Worship might go behind the roll. He contended that the Magistrate could not go behind the roll. The Electoral Act was divided into two main porta respecting the compilation, and when the time had elapsed for persons to place their names on'the roll, then the roll was the legal one for the district. He went on to show that no person had any status but the returning officer. When dealing with the" roll and all matters connected therewith, lie eubmitted the Magistrate had to follow the usual course of procedure at enquiries of that nature. He submitted that the Magistrae could not go behind the roll. Mr Stringer said that if the roll had been so compiled as to make the compilation of the roU incomplete through certain omissions, then it was open to hie Worship to go behind the roll. His Worship remarked that be had carefully read the cases cited by counsel, and must rule that he had no power t»»go bshind the roll under which the returning officer had conducted the election. The question of adjournment was then raised. No objection was offered. His Worship suggested adjourning the case to January 15th. Counsel suggested February, and the adjournment was accordingly made to the sth of that month. Mr Stringer intimated that in the meantime several clauses in the petition wouiil be eliminated, ample notice of which would be given to opposing counsel.