BAY OF ISLANDS ELECTION

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 148, 24 June 1915, Page 2

BAY OF ISLANDS ELECTION

QUESTION Ol< COSTS OF PETITION. '«r TELEGRAPH— PRESS ASSOCIATION.) AUCKLAND, 2Srd June. The Allocation of costß in connection with the Bay of Islands election petition wa& argued before Mr. Justice Hosking at the Supreme Court to-day. Mr. W P. Eudean appeared for the petitioners, and Mr. J. R, Reed for the respondent, Mr. Vernon Reed, the unsealed candidate. Mr. J. 11. Reed -said it was the rule in such cases for the winner to bo awarded costs. There were, .however, exceptions, and he claimed that he was justitied in asking Ihe Coiirt not to order the respondent to pay the full costs. In the first place there were nine charges against the respondent* and tho fact of advertising them in tho newspapers did him harm. After the lapse of a period extending from 10th Decenv ber to 24th February, the petitioners, by notice, abandoned four of the charges. During the hearing the petitioners withdrew two serious charges of personal corruption, one of them being directed against the respondent himself. After the lapse of 4| months tho&e charges were still kept, hanging over the i respondent. At the hearing the petitioners failed i on the charge that there had been attempted bribery by John Jaeetitho. Further, the crossexamination did not reveal anything that could not have been known to petitioners previously. The clauses upon which the petition succeeded were alternative, and they were not matters on \vbich there had been any real conflict of evidence. The matter" had been ad* mitted from the beginning, and tho question became purely and simply a legal one. Had the petitioners confined themselves to that question the petition could probably have been disposed of in a day. Mr. Heed contended that an allowance of half the'^ime taken up by the hearing would be adequate on account of Ihe time which h«d been occupied in dealing with charges '^""'jwr were not upheld. Argument ''!*fa?|? question of limitation of time wat. «^u at. Wellington. That, point had aiisen ill Other election cases also, and special costs had not been allowed. Counsel quoted authorities in support of his coil' tention that the circumstances were special, and that the Court would be justified in departing from the rule applying to cases of an ordinary nature, Mr. Endean argued that before the case could be treated a« exceptional thf respondent must show that there had been unjustifiable charges or vexatious conduct on the part of the petitioners. He submitted that they had succeeded on the main charge— the one which came first — and the one upon which they relied. His Honour : How can any charge be deemed to be the main charge until it has come before the Court? It is the prominence which is given at the hearing that distinguishes it as the main charge. Mr. Endean contended that they succeeded on the charge relating to the offer of a seat in the Upper House. Counsel said that the healing of the Hawkes Bay petition had occupied four days, and the Court had allowed ex> penses covering eight days. Mr. Endean pointed out that the Bay of Islands petition differed from the English cases, because some of the witnesses were separated by 200 miles. More time wa-s therefore occupied in carrying the petition through. His Honour intimated that he would reserve his decision and notify the resuit from Wellington.