AN UNUSUAL PETITION.

Evening Star, Issue 15187, 19 May 1913, Page 5

AN UNUSUAL PETITION.

GRANTED BY AIR WIDDOWSON. At the Port- Chalmers Court to-day Mr Widdowson, S.M., sat to hear a petition signed by William Lunn and a. number of other local ratepayers asking that His Worship order a recount of the recent municipal poll for councillors of the Borough of Port Chalmers. William Lunn, the principal petitioner, had himself failed by one vote to secure re-election to the Borough Council at the poll, he being one vote behind the lowest successful candidate.

-Mr Lunn appeared in person, and stated that as one vote separated him and the lowest successful candidate ho simply asked that the votes bo recounted. His Worship said that that was not sufficient grounds for a recount. The law was plain. His Worship proceeded to read from the Municipal Corporations Act and the Local Elections and Poll Act. Afore specific grounds would have to be shown before a recount could be granted. Petitioner must give some reasonable proof in support of the allegations contained in the petition.

Petitioner; 1 make no charges against the poll or how it was conducted. But as it was quite possible there was a mistake of one vote, he simply asked for a recount. His Worship: I can’t order a recount unless evidence is submitted showing that it should be given. Air Lunn reiterated that as there was only a difference of one vote in ©SO votes there was probably a mistake in counting. His Worship then commented on the fact that there was an official count or rocount in the case of parliamentary elections, but no such_ recount was stipulated in the case of municipal elections. In the latter case it could only be done under the Municipal Corporations Act and Local Elections and Poll Act. But the petitioner could not come to court as a matter of course and get a recount. Some reason must be shown why a recount should be ordered.

Mr Lunn said he did not allege irregularities at the poll. In order to present Iris case move tally h© asked for an adjournment in order to procure legal assistance.

Mr F. W. Platts then came into the court to represent the petitioner, and His Worship explained that Mr Lunn said he had no complaint to make, and that it svas merely because there was a difference of one vote between him (Air Limn) and the lowest successful candidate that he wanted a recount. His Worship said that Was not su—-cieiit. There must be evidence to support the petition, and there must be shown to bo some reasonable ground for ordering a recount. Air Platts read from the petition (winch he had himself drawn up), and said the ground of the petition was that the votes weer not correctly added up. Air Widdowson i Very well; give ub some evidence.

Alcxander Leek swore that he was returning officer at the election in question. There wore 15 candidates for 10 seats. One vole separated Mr Prattley, the lowest successful candidate, and Mr Lnnn, who was the highest imsuoceEsful candidate. In the case of the candidate Anderson, one of the successful candidates, a mistake Of 100 votes was made in counting up the votes. There were three polling booths, with a deputy at each. Witness supervised the poll. He made up his declaration from the deputies’ returns. It would be more satisfactory if the law provided that aii Official count Should be made on the day following the election day. He did not. think there were anv errors in this case. Perhaps there might "he a difference m a matter of an informal Vote. The voting papers were made up in bundles, and were now in possession of the clerk ot the court.

William Lunn, petitioner, waa put into the witness bo::. Tho ground of his petiMon was that he Wanted a recount. Consiclenng the web weather and that the Officials were probably in a hurry to get •way, a mistake was possible. He did not complam of irregularities in a booth. 10 the Magistrate : Petitioner said he did nob personally know that tile recount was hurried. But they heard what Mr Leek had said about the wet night. He wanted a recount to have the informal votes scrutimsedi

i George Galloway .Chisholm; clerk of the court, said he received the Voting papers from the returning officer duly sealed, and they were still in his possession. He had received no notice opposing the petition, nor any counter petition. J His Worship said that sufficient evidence was how before. Him to justify a rewould forthwith take place Under his personal supervision. ,In reply to a question, tho clerk of the court said the recount would take foiir dr five hours.