AAGLAN SEAT

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25161, 17 April 1947, Page 8

AAGLAN SEAT

Voters Challenged As Maoris

ELECTORAL COURT TO DECIDE (P.A.) HAMILTON. April 16. : The Court's reiusal to grant a re- • quest by counsel for the petitioner to refer to the Native Land Court or to a Judge of that Court the task of determining the lineage of 2G voters challenged as Maoris was announced by the Bench this morning when the Electoral Court entered the third day of its hearing of Mr Hallyburwn Johnstone’s petition. The case is being heard before the Chief Justice 'Sir Humphrey O'Leary) and the senior puisne judge 'Mr Justice Blair). Giving the Court s decision on a re- I quest made by Mr W. J Sim. K.C.. on Mondav. and argued further by counsel yesterday, the Chief Justice said that , they doubted very much whether they : had power to do as Mr Sim had requested. It seemed to them, however, i that the duty of hearing the whole of the petition and deciding the various i questions of fact and law that arose t vas entrusted to the Electoral Court. | Whatever the task might involve in ■ the way of detailed evidence and the I length of hearing, the Court must face ; it however attractive Mr Sim's request | might be. His Honour added that furthermore I the application was opposed by counsel j for the respondent, and it was refused by the Court. Further evidence was heard as to the electoral qualification of Elmer Nevil McGill and his wife. Irene McGill. Registrar’s Evidence The Registrar ut Electors foi Raglan. James Provo Miller, tuld tne Court that to his knowledge there was no special form of application lor the registration of returned servicemen and their wives who had not completed the normal residential qualification in the electorate. Mr T. P. Cleary, for the respondent, said it was argued that McGill had maintained his New Zealand domicile in spite of his 10 years at sea before the war and that as a returning serviceman he was entitled to register in the place of his residence before leaving New Zealand. Argument regarding Mrs McGill would centre upon the question of what was her place of residence after her arrival in New Zealand as the wife of a serviceman The Court heard evidence in further cases of voters challenged by the petitioner on the ground that they had not completed three months in the Raglan electorate at the date of the election. The first two cases concerned William James McFarlane, a student at Massey College, and Mrs Melva Rangihuna. of Hamilton. Ajain this morning, as yesterday afternoon, much evidence was heard by the Court as to the changes of residence of farm workers and other witnesses. This evidence involves reference to numerous locality names in various parts of the Waikato, and several times questions were asked by the Bench as to the geography of the townships ar.d districts mentioned. Another voter whom the petitioner alleged had been less than three months in Raglan at the date of the General Election on November 27. 1946, was Thomas P. K. Rasleigh, a civil servant, who voted in Raglan although his wife voted as an absentee voter for Franklin. Rasleigh said that on September 2. 1946. he commenced duties at the Rukuhia Soil Fertility Research Station, having previously worked in the Franklin electorate. The new job entitled him to a house at Rukuhia. and on August 19, 1946. he went there to prepare the house for occupation by his wife and family, who did not join him there until the end of August. He enrolled on November 2, 1946. for Raglan where he voted, although his wife recorded an absentee vote for Franklin.

Cross-examined, the witness said he worked one day at the new job on August 1. but worked there from August 19 onwards, although his official 2 U j9l6 n °t begin until September

To the Chief Justice witness acknowledged that when he enrolled he had not completed three months in Raglan, but believed that as three months would have elansed before the election he would have been disfranchised from Franklin. His wife was in different circumstances as she did not move until later. The Chief Justice observed that the witness had obviously intended no wrong, and seemed to have acted very reasonably. Straight Forward Conduct “From what has come before the Court so far, I have not seen any ground for a suggestion that there has been anything other than straightforward conduct on the part of any witnesses,’’ said the Chief Justice (Sir Humphrey O’Leary) this afternoon, shortly before the Court rose after the third day of the hearing. The Chief Justice’s remark was prompted by the statement of one witness that he had acted in a completely straightforward manner in recording his vote 'in Raglan.

The witness in this case was Thomas Whalley, an airman, who, after a series of changes of address within a short space of time, commenced duty at the R.N.Z.A.F. station, Te Rapa, on October 7, 1946. Whalley explained that when he saw an electoral officer in Wellington before taking up duties at Te Rapa, he was advised to enrol for the electorate to which he was going. Counsel for both the petitioner and the respondent made it clear that their questioning had not been intended too imply that Whalley had acted other than straightforwardly. Although the wanted witness had been sought in the South Island, he had not so far been located, with the result that it had not yet proved possible to subpoena him, said Mr R. E. Tripe, one of the counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the hearing of another case this afternoon. The missing man was Geoffrey Albert Tomlinson, of Huntly, a miner, whose right to vote in Raglan had been challenged by Mr Hallyburton Johnstone on the ground that Tomlinson had not completed three months’ residence in the electorate at the time of the genera] election.

After evidence had been heard by other witnesses concerning Tomlinson ’s arrival in Huntly last year, and his starting work in the mine there, Mr Tripe asked that the case be held over. Mr R. Hardie Boys, for the respondent, Mr A. C. Baxter, asked why the voter concerned was not being called in this, as in other cases.

Mr Tripe then explained that Tomlinson could not be found at the moment, and the Court agreed to hold the case over. Most of the afternoon was occupied with taking evidence of what is rapidly becoming routine concerning the domicile of those whose votes have been challenged Shortage ot Voting Papers Reference to the shortage of printed voting papers reported to have occurred at Taupo on the day of the general election was made during the case concerning George Joseph Davis, a lorry driver, of Glen Afton. The petitioner objected that Davis and his wife, Dorothy Violet Davis, had removed from Raglan and qualified in another electorate. Davis’s own vote was objected to on the further ground that he made no declaration in the prescribed form. In evidence Davis said that he left Glen Afton about July last year, worked for some time in Aria, and moved to Taupo on October 2, 1946. On election day he voted by postal vote in Taupo for Raglan, and he believed his wife did likewise. When the witness left the box counsel for the petitioner indicated that their objection would rest on residential ground Counsel for the respondent, however, asked that as formal objection had been lodged concerning Davis’s deciaration. evidence should be heard on the matter.

Mr T. P. Cleary, for the respondent, said that on election day a polling booth in Taupo ran out of printed forms of all kinds, not only those for postal votes, with the result that voters were handed forms made out in pencil, which strictly speaking were not declarations at all. Davis received one of these pencil forms, although his

wife who visited the booth at a different time of the day. did not. Davis, recalled by Mi Cleary, was handed a pencil form for scrutiny. Davis identified his signature on it, but said the other handwriting on a sheet of paper handed to him by counsel was not his. The pencil form in question had been handed to him in the Tapuo polling booth by Mr Howard Hill deputy returning officer there, or by one of the staff in the booth The Court agreed that argument concerning the use of pencil forms forj voters’ declarations might be heard. later if counsel desired.