Voters Challenged As Maoris: Court To Decide Issue Itself

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 April 1947, Page 2

Voters Challenged As Maoris: Court To Decide Issue Itself

(P.A.) . ' HAMILTON, This Day. Refusal to grant, the request, by counsel for the petitioner to refer to the Native. Land Court, or to the judge of that court, the task of determining the lineage of 26 voters challenged as Maoris was announced by the bench this morning when the Electoral Court entered the third day of the hearing of ITallyburton Johnstone’s petition. The case is being heard before the Chief Justice, Sir Humphrey O’Leary, and the senior puisne judge, Mr Justice Blair.

Giving the court’s decision on the request made by Mr W. J. Sim K.C. on Monday and argued further by counsel yesterday, the Chief Justice said they doubted very much whether they had power to do as Mr Sim had requested. It seemed to them, however, that the duty of hearing the whole of the petition and deciding the various questions of fact and law that arose was entrusted to the Electoral Court. Whatever the task might involve in the way of detailed evidence and the length of hearing, the court must face it, however attractive Mr Sims’s request might be. His Honor added that furthermore the application was opposed by counsel for the respondent and it was refused by the court.

Further evidence was heard as to the electoral qualification of Elmer Nevil McGill and his wife, Irene McGill.

The registrar of electors for Raglan, James Provo Miller, told the court that to his knowledge there was no special form of application for the registration of returned servicemen and their wives who had not completed the normal residential qualification in the electorate.

Respondent’s Argument Mr T. P. Cleary, for the respondent, said it was argued that McGill had maintained his New Zealand, domicile despite his 10 years at sea before the war and that as a returning serviceman he was entitled to register in the place of his residence before leaving New Zealand. Argument regarding Mrs'McGill would centre upon the question of what was her place of residence after her arrival in New Zealand as the wife of a serviceman. The court heard evidence in further cases of voters challenged by the petitioner on the ground that they had not completed three months in the Raglan electorate at the date of the election. The first two cases concerned William James McFarlane, a student at Massey College, and Mrs Melva Rangihuna, married of Hamilton. Again this morning, as yesterday afternopn, much tedious evidence was heard by the court as to the changes of 'residence of farm workers and other witnesses. This- evidence involves reference to numerous locality names in various parts of the Waikato and several times questions were asked by the bench as to the geography of the townships and districts mentioned. When, however, Mr Sim began an explanation about a place named Tokoroa, the Chief Justice interrupted him, remarking: “Don’t mention it to me, Mr Sim. I had to change a tyre there.”

Two of the petitioner’s objections dealt with this morning were those against Lawrence Trevor Gera and Sylvia Violet Gera, who, it was alleged, had removed from Raglan and qualified in another electorate. Gera told the court that he worked as a farm hand at Ruawaro, Huntly, for three months last year, and previously lived in the vicinity of Hamilton. On June 6, 1946, he commenced working on a farm at Manurewa in the Franklin electorate, after spending three weeks with relatives in Manurewa. He and his wife had remained in Manurewa. since June, 1946. While in the Raglan electorate they had both enrolled there on March 1, 1946, and at the General Election they recorded postal votes in Manurewa for Raglan. They had been told by the returning officer that it was in order to do so. Insufficient Residence ■ Another voter whom the petitioner alleged had been less than three months in Raglan at the date of the general election on November 27, 1946, was Thomas P. K. Rasleigh, a civil servant, who voted in Raglan, although his wife voted as an absentee voter for Franklin. Rasleigh said that on September 2, 1946, he commenced duties at the Rukuhia Soil Fertility Research Station, having previously worked in the Franklin electorate. The new job entitled him to a house at Rukuhia and on August 19 he went there to prepare the house for occupation by his wife and family, who did not join him there until the end of August. He enrolled on November 2, 1946, for Raglan, where he voted, although his wife recorded an absentee vote for Franklin.

Cross-examined, witness said he worked one day at his new job on August 1, but Worked there from August 19 onwards, although his official duties did not begin until September 2, 1946. To the Chief Justice, witness acknowledged that when he enrolled he had not completed three months in Raglan, but believed that as three months would have elapsed before the election he would have been disfranchised for Franklin . His wife was in different circumstances, as she did not move until later. The Chief Justice observed that the witness had obviously intended no wrong and seemed to have acted very reasonably. Yesterday’s Proceedings The first cases dealt with after lunch yesterday were those of Leonard John Dynes, of Frankton, a farm hand, and his wife, Olga May Dynes. Neither was available to give evidence this afternoon, but Denis Campbell Clark, a farmer, of Komakorau, told the Court that Dynes and his wife had been employed by him as a married couple until September 17, 1946, on his property, which was in the Piako electorate. Cross-examined, Clark said 93 acres of his property lay in Raglan, but about 500 acres in Piako. Dynes would have worked on both sections of the property. David Provo Millar, postmaster at Ngaruawahia and Registrar of Electors for the Raglan electorate, gave evidence of an application for enrolment of Dynes and Mrs Dynes in October, 1946, for the Raglan electorate. To Mr Hardie Boys the witness admitted that these two electors had appeared on the supplementary roll for Raglan in February, 1946, when they were living at Horsham Downs. That they had disappeared from the.

main roll published later in the year was probably due to the purge of the roll.

Betty Dinah Fisher told the Court that after living for some time in Epsom she accepted a job as housekeeper in Huntly on September 22, 1946, On October 21, 1946, she applied for registration in the Raglan electorate. Ten Year at Sea

Unusual circumstances were revealed by the evidence of a former airman, Elmer Nevil McGill, who said he arrived back in New Zealand on October 22, 1946, with his wife, Irene McGill, and their two children. They spent a few days with his parents at an address which he now knew to be in the Hauraki district. Then they spent a week with his brother in Frankton Junction, and later visited various relatives at different addresses. “At that time I could not say I had a home of my own at all,” said McGill. When, on October 4 last, he began work, he was staying with a sister at her home in the Hamilton electorate, but later spent a week at Ngaruawahia, and exercised his vote there. Though he was seeking a home of his own he did not secure one until this month. McGill said he left New Zealand in 1928, and spent 10 years at sea in the merchant service. By virtue of his occupation he claimed to have maintained his New Zealand domicile. Before going to sea he lived and worked at Mercer, in the Raglan electorate. In April, 1939, he left the merchant service because he could see the war coming, and volunteered for the Air Force, which he joined in 1940, serving until his discharge late in 1945. McGill said he had not previously been on any electoral roll because he was a minor when he' left New Zealand, but he had never voted in England because he had no permanent home there. McGill said he and his wife enrolled on October 2 last year. The statement on his wife’s declaration that she had resided in New Zealand for one year (which had not been struck out on the card) was incorrect, as was the declaration that she had been three months in the electorate. However, said McGill, before he and his wife enrolled he had telephoned Mr John Cameron Halliday, postmaster at Huntly, and returning officer for Raglan at the general election. Returning Officer’s Advice

“Mr Halliday told me that provided I gave the address of the house in which I was sleeping on the night I made the application, it would be sufficient,” said witness. “He, said that if I voted in the district, in which I worked before I went away it would be satisfactory.” McGill said he believed his wife was entitled, as a war bride, to some concession in regard to registration. Cross-examined by Mr Cleary, McGill said Mr Halliday had placed more emphasis on. the fact that the witness, as a former serviceman, was entitled under the Electoral Amendment Act, of 1940, to exercise his vote “regardless of declarations or otherwise.”

Mr Cleary: But you did not. know that an election petition would result in matters being put under a microscope.

McGill said he had understood from Mr Halliday that a serviceman’s wife was entitled to a concession excusing her from the normal residential qualification. Another witness heard during the afternoon was Harold Fairhurst, whose postal vote had been challenged by the petitioner, and who was called before other voters in a similar category because he was leaving tomorrow for England. Fairhurst said he voted in Australia before a justice of the peace with papers forwarded to him by his father. He had applied in 1935 to be enrolled as an elector.