THE FRANKLYN ELECTION PETITION.

Evening Post, Volume XXIII, Issue 62, 16 March 1882, Page 2

THE FRANKLYN ELECTION PETITION.

DECISION OP THE COURT. [By Tklkgraph.] (UNITED PRKBS ASSOCIATION.] Auckland, 15th Mar oh. After some farther evidence as to Sntoliffe'a case, the Franklin elcot-on petition was dismissed to-day. Major Campbell, Clerk to; the House of Representatives, was sworn, ' and produced a packet containing voting papers of the election for Franklin North. - > The packet waa unsealed, and the voting paper prodncod, which petitioner claimed had been wrongly rejected for writing the same '- across the face of it. Mr. Luak was then heard in support of the lieturniug. Officer's aotion in rejecting this vote. He contended that writing the name npon the facts of the paper was a violation of tho seorccy of tho ballot, and of the Act, whioh prescribed that voting should bo socrotly done. The Chief Justice did not think it necessary to call npon Mr. Cotter fa reply. The Act must be construed aa others wore. As it did not expressly prohibit writing the name across a voting paper, the.dpiog.nf that constituted no offence, He tookdfrtor granted the objoot of the Act was to provide for secrecy of 'the ballot, bat it did' not seek to prevent an eleotor, if he ohose, from making known : howhe had votod. The paper under notico consequently should have been received. Mr. Justice Gilles entirely agreed with what the Chief Justioo had said. It was not for them to impose a penalty for some supposed breach of the Aot for whioh no penalty was provided. He waa quite of opinion that tho writing of the name across a voting paper did not invaUdato tho vote, therefore it would be allowed, and would count as an additional vote for Mr. Buokland. Mr. Lmk then claimed that two voting papers should bo counted which had been disallowed at Papakura, because no names on them iiad been cancelled, but only a cross placed at the 'side of three names. It was argued that thia was tho practice of many people in England, and that, at any rate, where the voter c intention was clear, the vote Bhould not be rofusod. In this case only one porßon could be voted for, and tho attaohing of a oioss to three names on each paper meant that the fourth name was tho ouo for whiohthe vote was rooorded. A third voting paper' was then produced, in which the Christian namoa of throe candidates woro soored out in ncnoil, and tho surnamos left untouched. ' Tho name of tho fourth candidato was not marked in any way. This vote had also been disallowed, and Mr. Lusk now claimed to havo it oountod. The Chief Justioo, in railing npon Mr. Cotter to roply, said ho and .lustioe Gillies were satisfied the two papers having crosses at the side of certain names were invalid, and, therefore, argumont could be confined to tho case of the thtrd paper. «Mi>. Cotter then replied, contending the failuro to mark out surnames as well as .Christian names rendered tho paper invalid. Tho Judges ruled in favour of Mr. ( Lnsk, and ordered tho additional vote to booounted for Harris. This Dat. After the proceedings in the Franklyn petition, reported yesterday, the intimidation cases were corsidorod. The charges wore contained in clauses two and tliroo of the petition, and aro to tho offect that' the Dei puty-Roturning Officer at Howick refused to give William Uovell a voting paper without attaching to it a condition whioh ho was not authorised by law to do, and that Robert Hathoway used insinuati 119 to Do veil, and A prevented him from voting. Dovoll's evidence was to the iffeot that ho had boon prevented from voting by throats of Hathaway and others to get his (DovolPs) master into trouble, and by the Roturning Officer Baying, " You can voLo if you like, but I will oast it asido, and it will not count." Ho had only boon b>'x weeks in tho place prior to tho election. John Smith, Deputy Returning Officer, said he had been requested by Hattaway to ask Dovoll if he had bcon residont in the district b"x months. Dovoll said " No." Witn9BS did not refuse Dovoll a voting paper, but told him if he voted he would mark tho paper " illegal " Eobert Andrews deposod to having heard Hattaway tell Dovell he was liable to a penalty of .£4O if he voted. Hattaway in evidence admitted "having ' tolfi A tho Returning Officer Dovell was not legally entitled to vote Una concluded tho intimidation case tho Bench decided to hoar the other case before l.stoning to tho arguments of counsel. Other coses, with reforenco to the appointment of a poll clerk, contained in olauses 7, 8, and 9, were then proceeded with. Shauaghan, the returning offioer, gave evidenoo on the nmttor, after which the Court adjourned till H.bis morning, tho locale being changed to Otnhuha. ' ' Latest. The North Franklyn election haa botan deolared void in oonsoquenca of intimidation being practised by Hatheway,