THE FRANKLYN ELECTION PETITION.

Evening Post, Volume XXIII, Issue 61, 15 March 1882, Page 2

THE FRANKLYN ELECTION PETITION.

[By Telegraph.] i united p&bßs association. j Auckland, 14th March. The Petition Court Bat to-day at Papakura for th 9 determination of Buckl&nd'a petition against the retnrn of Major Harria for Franklyn North, on the ground of oertain charges . made against the latter and Mr. Shanaghan, the Returning Officer. The Chief Justice, Sir Jameß Prendergast, and Mr. Justice ■ Gillies presided. Messrs. Cotter and Whitaker appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Luak , tor Major Harris, and Mr. Shanaghan for '♦ himself. The grounds of the petition were as follows :—l.: — 1. At Mapgare Shanaghan declared a voting paper informal because the name of the voter was written across its faoe. At Howick, he refused rovell's voting paper upon being told ho had not waidod Bix months in the district. 3. Kobort ITannaway, junior, practised intimidation on Dovoll. 4. At Howick, a person naoiod Thomas Sutcliffe voted in respect of anotnor porsou whose name appeared ou the roll «a Jatnos Sutcliffe. 5. Shanaghan havingc i«d petitioner to believe there was oahrono ballot box at Otahuhu, he provided , only ono scrutineer, whereas two bo'^ea wore *ÜBfd. < 8. £hanaghan appointed aa poll cleric Richard Seftbn, previously sorutinoer for Lake. 9. And William D. Bush, who previously requested electors not to vote for petitioner. 10. White '298 persons received voting papers at Otahuhu, 304 votes were recorded and counted. ' 11. Said papers issued to voters were not initialed by Returning Officer, as required by kw. It was also conteuded, in issuing voting papers to the eleotors, that Shanaghan had not ticked off names on roll. This non-ticking' a»d non-initialing haviug been admittod, argument was raised as to whether it Tendered the election invalid. The Judges having first declared if this fact wore established the result would bo to simply m'ako the olec« tion void and iiavo it over again, all parties being eligible, Mr. Cotter^ th'on argued4*k (1) That as the Returning Officer did not oomply with the provision* of seotion, 30 of " 'Jho Regulation of Elootiona Act, 1881," ot Otahuhu, by ticking and initialing the whole of the votes given, thoy woro bad ; (2) that as suah votes represented one- third of the number who voted at the wholetilee*'' tion, it would not bo a fair representation of the district to deoide, in oaso of omitting such votes, and therofore tho whdlo oleb'tion was void. Mr. Luak, in reply, contondod there was a Bpociftl provision in the Act providing for tho appointmont of a poll clerk to preside at the ballot boxes, and that it w«3 competent for them to perform the ticking and initialing Ho oharaoterisod the objections as merely formal ones. No slioh"^ alteration was made in respeob of voting at Otahuhu, and therefore thero was no elebto- ■ ' ral iniscaniage ; bosides, if all the votoß taken at Otahuhu were struck out, tho petitioner would bo in a still smaller majority, for there tho other candidates got tho bulk of their Bupport. The remainder of'ttio Bit- i ting was occupiod by tiio ovidonco of Mr. Shanaghan, the Returning Officer. - mujjwj This Dat. Tho Pranklyn petition- waa oontinned yesterday Attor hoaxing the arguments of CDunsol, tho Chief Justice thought there had been great irregularity, "but hftwnsnbt'' prepared to say that tho election waa voided. Perhaps, in c< uuootioh' with other matters, it might have the effuct.of voiding tho election, and he would nowoall ou the petitioner to go on with hia ease. Mr. Cotter said the Clerk of Writs had not yet arrived. On the suggestion of the ,Chief Justice, tlio. pot. Bonating case was taken. Alabourer'nanioo Putcliffo was examined by Mr. Cotter with the object of showing that ho (Sutcl ffe) had voted in respect to property of whioh ho wa» not the owner. One Alfred Richard Hnrns had filled in tho claim to voto, but witniso did not know tho contents of it. His Honour said Harris had not considered that ho was liable to ten yoara' imprisonment for sending in a claim to vote without written authority. It was manifest that tho ratification in the p-iper had boon filled in not by Harris, but by tho Returning Officer. Aftor hearing further evidenoe regarding tho property in respect of which Sutdiffo voted-, tho Court adjourned till to-day< , <<i *