RAGLAN PETITION

Grey River Argus, 3 May 1947, Page 3

RAGLAN PETITION

Nearing Final Stages

VOTERS CHALLENGED BY MR. BAXTER

F.A. HAMILTON, May 2. Although its marathon course is not yet fully run, the Electoral Court hearing of Hallyburton Johnstone’s petition to reverse the result of the General Election in Raglan, had the end in sight when it adjourned to-day after three week’s of tedious hearing. Although respondent’s case was not quite completed, little except formal evidence remains to be heard, and counsel’s submissions should commence during Monday’s sitting. Evidence given before Chief Justice Sir Humphrey O’Leary and Senior Puisne Judge Sir Archibald Blair, now extends over some 270 type-written pages of foolscap, or more than one hundred thousand words. Of this, 179 pages was recprded during the presentation of the petitioner’s case. A feature of to-day’s proceedings was that three electors who had been served with subpoenas to attend as witnesses, did not respond when their names were called. One appeared later in the day, but was not then required, as alternative evidence had then been heard.

Another offered no explanation in writing or otherwise, although he had been advertised for in the personal columns of a newspaper, while the third who, was waiting in court yesterday afternoon, had, according to a telegram sent to the court by her employer, had suffered a breakdown in Hamilton last night, and was too ill to appear to-day. Gerard Hassan, civil engineer, employed by the Hamilton City Council, said that on August 1 last 110 moved from an address in the Raglan electorate to the Naali Transit Camp in the Hamilton electorate. After they moved to the transit house, his wife enrolled for Hamilton. He voted for Raglan, after verifying that he was on the Raglan roll. He gave it no more thought, but, recently, on looking at his rent books, he found that he had qualified for Hamilton five days before the supplementary rolls closed. Questioned by Mr Tompkins as to the nature of the transit housing camp, witness said there were communal wash places, lavatories, laundries, and so on. Sir Archibald Elair: Communal inconveniences! (Laughter). Witness was questioned further as to why he had not followed the same course as his wife in respect to the enrolment. He replied: “Had I been right, my wife would have been wrong.” , » Gordon Wilfred Button, postal official, whose true place of residence was alleged to be outside Raglan, gave evidence that he enrolled for Raglan on April 23, 1946. For some time during the war he was in the Papakura military camp. His duties in the army were those of a postal official. When on August 17, 1946, the post office in the camp was put on a civilian basis, he had remained there, as a civilian official, living in the quarters 'which he had occupied while l.c was a member of the forces. He left Papakura in October last, on transfer to Papatoetoe. He still was at Papatoetoe. Witness said that, while at Papakura, he regularly visiied his mother at Taupiri, in Raglan electorate. He considered his true home was at his mother’s place at Taupiri, rather than in the Bay of Plenty. He was enrolled in Bay of Plenty before entering camp.

In reply to Mr Cleary, witness said his mother’s place was the home ol' his affections.

Chief Justice O’Leary said that

Button was not blamed for enrolling as he had done, but the fact was that he had lived during most of 1946 at Papakura, and not at Taupiri. Mr O’Leary said that there appeared to be some misconception regarding the word home. Some people still called England home, but a misconception was no foundation for qualification for enrolment in an electorate, if the place of abode was not there.

Respondent challenged the vote of Ethel Joyce Rumney, who travelled here from Motueka. She said her home was at Taupiri. In February, 1945, she went to the Nelson district fruit picking, and stayed there until August. She returned home until May, 1946. Then she went back to Motueka, remaining there until September 27, 1946. Then she spent a fortnight at her home in Taupiri. Next she went to Auckland, where .she cast an absentee vote for Raglan. She was now back at Motueka. She had gone to the Nelson district on medical advice. She regarded Taupiri as her real home. Mr. T. P. Cleary, prosecuting an objection against the vote of John Rankin Thomson, said the case depended on the exact date of the elector’s departure from Raglan. Thompson, after a subpoena was served against him, wrote to the Registrar of the court, saying he had left To Kohanga (where he had been share-milking), on August 7, 1946 to take up residence at Coatesville in the Rodney electorate. He applied for admission to the . supplementary roll for Rodney. His application reached the registrar of electors too late. He therefore cast an absentee veto for Raglan.

Thompson had vouched that he could attend the court only with extreme inconvenience. Thomson was advised to communicate with the party that had subpoenaed him and wrote to Mr. Cleary, explaining that if he attended the court he would have to leave his wife, who had a young child, to milk 50 cows unaided for three days. “We did not wish to inconvenience him,” said Mr. Cleary. “We asked him to refer us to any person who could confirm the date of his arrival at Coatesville. He referred up to Tuakau Transport Ltd., who shifted his furniture. That, firm’s records, however, showed the shift, was made on August 5 not August 7. August 6 was the “deadline” for qualifying for the supplementary rolls closing on November 6. A letter just received from Thomson this morning said his father-in-law, John Stoddart Cassidy (also challenged by the respondent) could testify as to the date of his removal.” Thomson in this letter said it. was possible he had arrived on the farm at Coatesville on August 5 to familiarise himself with the property before the outgoing farmer left. Thomson suggested that his vote for Raglan might be allowed if his application for Rodney were proved to have been too late.

The court agreed to excuse Thomson from attendance. John Stoddart Cassidy gave evidence that his son-in-law, Thomson, reached the farm at Coatesville on August 5 and resided there since. Cassidy said his own furniture was moved to Coatesville on the same day. He travelled with the furniture, but he had not lived continuously there since, as part of his time was spent with other members of his family. He would not have spent more than about six weeks at Coatesville prior to the closing ol the rolls on November G, 194 G. HUMOROUS MAORI CASES Maoris were again in the witness box, tracing their genealogy, and their Whakapapas were again flourished this afternoon, as the respondent’s case moved forward from the objections on residential grounds to a group of electors who are challenged as being of more than hall Maori blood. Counsel for the respondent announced that seven objections had been lodged on racial grounds. One of these cases would not be proceeded with. Another case was common to both lists. The first cases in which evidence was called were those of Tipene Minhinnick and Tukotahi Minhinnick, two brothers. The latter s wife, Wikitoria Minhinnick, is also i challenged. Stephen Kirkwood, of Frankton, 1 railway shunter, said he knew the Minhinnick brothers. Their mother I was his father’s cousin. She was ! Mihi Ratu. She was a full blood I Maori, while their father, Mitere 1 Minhinnick. was of half Maori blood. Kirkwood said that he also knew Stephen Minhinnick, the grandfather of the brothers, who was a half-caste, as was also his wife, Put! Cowell. ' Witness here diverted to tell , the court how it came about that Stephen Minhinnick’s brother, a grand unde of the two challenged voters, came to be known as “Bag” Minhinnick. He was stolen, as a boy, by Maoris, who put him in a bag, and they called him “Bag.” When he later found that he was a Minhinnick he adopted the name of “Bag” Minhinnick, which, stuck to him. Cross-examined by Mr Tompkins, the witness said that he was rc- - sponsible for the drawing up of the Whakapapa of the Minhinnick Family. This Mr Cleary had presented to the court. He himself was a half-caste, and he was 45 years of age. Kirkwood was lengthily questioned by Mr Tompkins as to his personal knowledge of those members of the Minhinnick fami y whom he had named in evidence, and whom he had included in the Whakapapa which he drew up. Tukotahi Minhinnick, share milker, one of the challenged voters, said that he enrolled on October 23 last for Raglan. His enrolment card, showed he was, formerly on the roll for the Western Maori and 'he had previously voted for that electorate. At the last election he and his brother Tipene voted in Raglan. Witness said he knew that his 'mother was a full Maori. His father had some Maori blood. Question of Nationality An unusual qr'stion posed to the

court this afternoon was whether an elector who had been in New Zealand since 1925, but whose father, after being naturalised in New Zealand under the 1908 Statute, returned to his native Yugoslavia where the son was born, is now possessed of British nationality. It was agreed that the statement of facts presented to the court by counsel showed that the voter, Nedilko Mate Devcich was a son of Marian Devcich, a native of Yugoslavia, who obtained letters patent of naturalisation in New Zealand about 1908 under the Aliens’ Act of that year. In 1910, he returned to Yugoslavia, marrying a native of that country. The voter was born in Yugoslavia in 1913 of that marriage. Later, the father returned to New Zealand and again went back to Yugoslavia. The voter had at no time applied for naturalisation in New Zealand or elsewhere, and his father had at no time applied for a certificate of naturalisation under Section Nine of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens (In New Zealand) Act, 1923, or under Section Five of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens (In New Zealand) Act, 1928. Mr. Devcich, giving evidence, said he was farming at Ngahinepouri and had voted for Raglan. When he applied for registration a few years ago, he struck out the declaration that, he was British by birth, but did not delete the declaration that he was British by naturalisation, which he believed to be correct because of the status his father had obtained under the 1908 Act. He was born in 1913 at Pod Gora in Yugoslavia. He came to New Zealand in 1925 with a , brother and their father. All travelled on’British passports. More recently, his father again went to Yugoslavia, intending to dispose of some property there, and return permanently to New Zealand but the war intervened, and his father was still in Yugoslavia. To Mr. R. E. Tripe for petitioner, Devcich said he always believed himself to be British. His legal advisers had supported that view. He owned his farm at Ngahinepouri, and when he inadvertently failed to register for military service, he was fined at Hamilton. Later, he was three times called up for military service, and three times exempted as a farmer. On no occasion was he excused as an alien, and on no occasion did he raise that defence. He considered himself a British subject to-day, but if from the present proceedings it emerged that he was not, he would certainly apply for naturalisation. Chief Justice O’Leary said it would be a matter for dry legal argument to determine this voter’s status.

When the court resumed after lunch, Mr. CLeary announced that Thomson had arrived to give evidence, but as far as respondent’s case was concerned, was not now required. The court gave Mr. A. L. Tompkins, for petitioner, an opportunity to call Thomson, but Mr. Tompkins said that as Thomson did not dispute the evidence given as to his arrival at Coatesville, there was no need to call him as a witness. Thomson was commended by the Chief Justice for having attended in answer to a subpoena, although at considerable inconvenience.

One voter challenged as having predominantly Maori blood, was Barney Haddon. When his name was called without response in the court precincts, Mr. Cleary explained that this voter was served with a subpoena at New Plymouth on April IS. A receipt had been obtained from him for the subpoena and for. £3 15s travelling expenses paid to him. He was told he would be advised by telegraph as to the exact date he was required to appear in court. On April 24, he left New Plymouth leaving a message there that an advertisement in the personal column of a Taranaki newspaper would be the means of communicating with him. Such an advertisement was published on April 28 and 29, telling Haddon to appear in court at 10 a.m. on Wednesday of this week, but although a watch had been kept for him, he had not been seen. Other evidence would, however, be called to support the objection. Criwa Haddon, who described himself as an organiser employed by the New Zealand Labour Party, said Barney Haddon was his nephew, and until ‘just after the election, was working for Tukotahi Minhinnick, another challenged voter who gave evidence yesterday. Barney Haddon was now living irt New Plymouth. Witness and his brother James—father of- Barney—were half-castes, their father, the Reverend Robert Tahu Haddon, was a half-caste, as was also their mother. Each of his parents said witness was a child of a full European father, and of a full Maori mother. Witness said his sis-ter-in-law—wife of his brother James and mother of the voter Barney Haddon—was a full Maori. He had been kepeing watch in the courtroom and elsewhere in Hamilton since Wednesday morning for his nephew, but the latter had not appeared.

To Mr. Tompkins, witness admitted he was interested in the present ease because of his position as a Labour Party organiser. Asked if his brother James could not attend the court, witness said his brother was a permanent invalid with spinal trouble, having spent nearly four years in plaster. It would be extremely inconvenient for his brother to attend the. court. Witness summed up his evidence by saying that his nephew, who recently became twenty-one years of age, was a three-quarter Maori. Mr. Tompkins asked for leave to call further evidence later if he desired.

Mr. Cleary, returning to the case of the three Minhinnicks challenged yesterday, said Mrs. Wikitoria Minhinnick had been in court yesterday afternoon, but her turn as. witness was not reached before the court adjourned. She had to return last night to the farm on which she and her husband were share-milking. However, the arrangement was she should be in court again this afternoon.

“I have just been handed by the Registrar of the Court, a telegram from her employer which states ‘Wikitoria Minhinnick ill following breakdown in Hamilton last evening* ” said Mr. Cleary, who added that the telegram had been lodged in Tuakau this morning, and was signed Muir. “All I can say is she was in paparently good health last evening when she’ left the court,” said Mr. Cleary who was given leave to call the case again on Monday morning. Mrs. Ngarehu Barton, who voted

for Raglan at the, last election, said an aunt told her last Monday that her father was a full-blooded Maori. Previously she had not known her father’s degree of Maori blood, but she thought her grandfather was a ship’s captain. Her mother’s mother was a full Maori, and her maternal grandfather was a full European. She had always voted as an European, and had been in the Raglan electorate since 1931. Vernon Richard Tout was challenged as an infant, but doubt was raised as to whether, in spite of his infancy, he qualified to vote because pf military service overseas. The case was held over for inquiry by counsel.