MORE RAGLAN VOTERS CHALLENGED AS MAORIS AND NON-RESIDENTS

Grey River Argus, 17 April 1947, Page 7

MORE RAGLAN VOTERS CHALLENGED AS MAORIS AND NON-RESIDENTS

HAMILTON, April 16.

When the Electoral Court, Chief Justice, Sir Humphrey O’Leary, and Senior’ Puisne Judge, Mr Justice Blair, resumed hearing H. Johnstone’s petition to set aside the Raglan election, the Chief Justice announced the Court’s decision on a request by Mr W. J., Sim, K.C'. 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. The Court 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. Furthermore the applicatoin was opposed by counsel for the respondent. 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 eletcors for Raglan, James Provo Miller, stated that to his knowledge there was no special form of application for the registration of returned servicemen and their wiyes who had not completed the normal residential qualification in the electorate.

Mr T. P. Cleary, for the respondent, said it was argued that McGill had maintained his New Zealand domicile despite his ten 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.

Further voters were 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 Willaim James McFarlane, a student at Massey College and Mrs Melva Rangihuna, married, of Hamilton.

Much tedious evidence was heard as to changes of residence of farm workers an dottier 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 Mr Sim began an explanation about a place named Tokoroa, the Chief Justice remarked: “Don’t mention it to me, Mr Sim. I had to change a tyre there” Petitioner objected against Lawrence Trevor Gera and Sylvia Violet Gera, who, it was alleged,, had removed from Raglan and qualified in another electorate. Gera stated 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 last he commenced working on a farnj at Manurewa in Franklin electorate, after spending three weeks with relatives in Manurewa. He and his wife had remained in Manurewa since Juno. While, in the Raglan electorate they had both enrolled there on March 1, 1946, and at the General Election recorded postal votes in Manurewa for Raglan They had been told by the returning officers that it was in order to do so.

Another voter whom petitioner alleged had been less than three months in Raglan at the date of the general election, was Thomas P. K. Rasleigh, civil servant, who voted in Raglan, while his wife voted as an absentee voter for Franklin. Rasleigh said that on September 2 he commenced duties at the Rukuhia Soil Fertility Research Station, haying previously worked in 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. 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 witness had o'bviously intended no wrong and seemed to have acted very reasonably. CHALLENGED VOTERS’ CONDUCT STRAIGHTFORWARD “From what has come before the Court so far, I have not seen any ground for a suggestion that there has been anything other than straightforward conduct on the part of any witnesses,” said the Chief Justice, Sir H. O’Leary, this afternoon, shortly before the Electoral Court rose after the third day of the hearing. The Chief Justice’s remark was prompted by the statement of one witness that he had acted in a completely straightforward manner in recording his vote in Raglan. The witness in this case of Thomas Whalley, an airman. After a series of changes of address within a short space of time, he commenced duty at the R’.N.Z.A.F. station at Te Rapa on July 7, 1946. Whalley explained that when he saw an electoral officer in Wellington, before taking up his duties at Te Rapa, he was advised to enroll for the electorate to which he was going. Counsel for both the petitioner and the respondent made it clear that their questioning had not been intended to imply that Whalley had acted other than in a straightforward way. WANTED WITNESS NOT FOUND y Although a wanted witness had been sought in the South Island, he

had not so far been located, with the result that it was not yet proved possible to subpoena him, said Mi* R. E. Tripe, one of the counsel for the petitioner during hearing of another case. The missing man was Geoffrey Albert Tomlinson, of Huffily, a miner, whose right to vote in Raglan had been challenged by Mr Hallyburton Johnstone, on the ground that Tomlinson had not completed thre months’ residence in the electorate at the- time of the general election. After evidence had been heard by other witnesses, concerning Tomlinson’s arrival in Huffily last year, and his starting work in the mine there, Mr Tripe asked that the case be held over. Mr R. Hardie Boys, for the respondent, Mr Baxter, asked why the voter concerned was not being called in this, as in the other cases. Tripe explained that Tomlinson could not be found at the moment. The court agreed to hold the case over. BOOTH RUNS OUT OF FORMS. Most of the afternoon was occupied in taking evidence of what is becoming a routine nature concerning the domicile of those whose votes have been challenged. Reference to a shortage of printed voting papers, reported ’to have occurred at Taupo on the day of the general election, was made during a case concerning George Joseph Davis, lorry driver, of Glen Afton. The petitioner objected that Davis and his wife, Dorothy Violet Davis, had removed from Raglan and qualified in another electorate. Davis’ vote was objected to, on further ground, that he made' no declaration in a prescribed form. In evidence, Davis said that ho left Glen Afton July last year. He worked for some time in Aria, and he moved to Taupo on October 2. On election day he voted, by postal vote, in Taupo, for Raglan, and he believed that his wife did likewise.

When the witness left the box counsel for the petitioner indicated that theii’ objection would rest on residential ground. Counsel, for the respondent, howexer, that, as a formal objection had been lodged concerning Davis’s declaration, evidence should be heard on that matter. Mr T. P. Cleary, for the respondent, said that, on election day, the polling booth in Taupo ran out of printed forms of all kinds —and not only those for postal votes —with the result that the voters were handed forms made out in pencil, which, strictly speaking, were not declarations at all. Davis received one of these pencil forms, although his wife, who visited the booth at a different time of the day, did not. Davis was recalled by Mr Cleary. He was handed a pencil form . for scrutiny. Davis identified his signature on it, but he sadi that the other hand-writing 1 on the sheet of paper handed to him by counsel was not his. The pericil form in question had been handed to him in the Taupo polling booth by Howard Hill, a deputy returning officer there, or by one of the- staff in the booth. The court agreed that argument concerning the use of the pencil forms for voters’ declarations might be heard later, if counsel desired.