RANGITIKEI SEAT

Evening Star, Issue 21091, 2 May 1932, Page 10

RANGITIKEI SEAT

MR STUART'S ELECTION SUSTAINED PETITION DISMISSED [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, May 2. The Election Court judgment in the Raugitikei case decides that Alexander Stuart was elected by a majority of seven valid votes. In the petition as framed (said the court) it was charged that the respondent by himself and his agents had been guilty of divers corrupt practices. Particulars were ordered to bo given, and were duly filed and served. In these particulars some of the corrupt practices alleged in the petition were withdrawn, but others were particularised in detail. At the trial all these particular charges, with the exception of one, were abandoned and withdrawn. The remaining charge was that shortly before the election one J. H. F. Fyte, of Marton, an engine driver, was reinstated in the Railway Department as the result of respondent’s efforts or those of some other person on his behalf to induce him to vote or retrain from voting. It was plain after Fyfe hacl given his evidence that the charge against the respondent was without any foundation in fact, and this was admitted by counsel for the petitioner, who as soon as ho saw that the charge could not be justified very properly abandoned it. , , „ In regard to the claims by both parties that voters were illegally on the roll, it was plain that the number was such that on a scrutiny the result of the poll might be affected. The voting papers of all such were accordingly examined, and thirty-five were disallowed, reducing respondent’s majority to ten. The court adopted the principles laid down in previous cases, and beyond this general statement the only class of case calling for comment was where the dividing line between Rangitikei and the adjoining electoral district ran through the property of an elector who resided on the property. In such cases the court held that the electoral district for which he was entitled to vote was determined by the situation of the residential dwelling on the property. Similarly in cases where a voter was shown to be residing in another district, though all the time engaged in work in the Rangitikei district, the court held that he was illegally on the Rangitikei roll. , , The court agreed that three absentee votes were properly rejected, one because the form of declaration was unsigned, the second because of unsmnlarity in the signatures on the original application and the declaration, and the third because the application was signed by applicant’s father. In regard to papers marked merely by crosses against the name of the candidate scrutiny revealed that there were twenty-four, of which thirteen were for respondent and eleven for petitioner. The court rejected all except in cases where there was an additional indication showing clearly for whom the voter intended to vote. As instancing the uncertainty of intent in using the cross, the paper of one voter was mentioned where a cross was placed opposite the name of one candidate and a line drawn through the same name. Obviously the cross could not have meant a vote for that candidate. Reference had been made to the case O’Brien v. Seddon, and it was stated that the decision that crossed votes were valid, made on that occasion, was that for many years it had _ been the method prescribed in municipal elections in New Zealand; but the municipal system had been brought into conformity with parliamentary election practice, and the sole reason which had induced the court in O’Brien v. Seddon to hold votes valid, no longer existed. Scrutiny up to this point resulted in a reduction of respondent’s majority from fifteen to seven. . Regarding the complaint that certain voters were precluded from voting at Murimotu through the polling booth closing down before 7 p.m., the court expressed itself as satisfied that although the booth was closed from 6 p.m. onwards, the deputy returning officer was on duty, and that from 6 onwards only one eligible person was prevented from voting. The court had no hesitation in saying that the irregularity did not affect and could not have affected the result of the election.

Dealing with the complaint that at Marton and-Marton Junction, certain persons, said to have been respondent’s agents, interfered with the voters, the court said there was nothing in the evidence from which to infer that their activities as checkers affected the result of the election.

Concerning petitioner’s claim that two payments made by the Reform League to F. M. Marlow, of Taihape, and A. Way,’ of Marton, were illegal under the Act, and must bo attributed to respondent as payments made by him,.or by the league, or that the payments were made to the two secretaries, could not fie so imputed. As to costs, the court thought, especially in view of the allegations of corrupt practice which turned out to be quite unfounded, that the; petitianor should pay the costs, charges, and expenses of the respondent as between solicitor and client.

[The Election Court (the Chief Justice, Sir M. Myers, and Mr Justice Reed), sat in Marton recently to hear the petition of James Hogan to upset the return of Mr A. Stuart as M.P. for Rangitikei.]