RAGLAN EVIDENCE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22319, 2 May 1947, Page 6

RAGLAN EVIDENCE

POINT CLARIFIED HUSBAND’S VOTE HEARINGS CONTINUED (P.A.) HAMILTON, May 1. When a husband and wife had voted under the same circumstances, it would be unfair for the court to disallow the husband's vote while the wife’s vote, for some technical or procedural reason, was allowed to remain valid, said the Chief Justice. Sir Humphrey O'Leary, in the Electoral Court to-day. He was giving a ruling on an application made yesterday by Mr. W. J. Sim. K.C., for petitioner concerning the vote of Hazel Olive Barclay. When Mr. T. P. Cleary said respondent was to abandon his challenge against Mrs. Barclay while pursuing his objection to the vote of her husband. Edward Charles Barclay. Mr. Sim asked for leave to take up the challenge against Mrs. Barclay. “Very Special Circumstances” The Chief Justice, in announcing this morning the assent of the Bench to Mr. Sim's request, said there were very special circumstances in this case entitling the court to give the leave requested by counsel for petitioner to take up the challenge. The votes of the husband and wife were recorded in the same circumstances, it appeared, on the evidence presented, although they were subject to any submissions which might be made that the court would have to disallow the vote of the husband. It would be unfair in that case if the wife’s vote were allowed to remain valid. Mr. Sim, acknowledging the leave given by the Bench, said the objection against Mrs. Barclay could perhaps be considered by the court without its being technically regarded as an addition "to petitioner’s list. It would have been trifling with the court, said Mr. Sim, to have. expected it to adjudicate upon the vote of the husband and not upon that of the wife. The court heard evidence today in more cases of electors whose residential qualification was called in question. Three cases of this nature were abandoned by respondent. School-teacher’s Travels “We would have had great difficulty on the evidence you have given us in deciding that you sliouid vole anywnere else than in Raglan,”- said the Chief Justice to one voter challenged by respondent as having her true place of residence outside Raglan. The voter was Evelyn Theresa Siebert of Ye Mata, who told how her employment as relieving schoolteacher during last year took her away from her home to various districts outside Raglan. "We agree with you, your Honour," smilingly remarked Mr R. Hardie Boys, counsel tor respondent, who had conducted the examination of the witness Mr Boys explained that in the contention of Mr Cleary, his fellow coun set, Miss Siebert was an elector who could have elected to have enrolled elsewhere than in Raglan but who ought not to have that other qualification thrust upon her. Her case corresponded to a number on the petitioner’s list. The Chief Justice: “You will not mind if we refuse your objection if we also refuse some of theirs.” Mr H. C. Tompkins, for the petitioner, claimed that Miss Siebert’s case was simply one of temporary absence from her rightful electorate.