SEVEN VAUD VOTES

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 117, 3 May 1932, Page 9

SEVEN VAUD VOTES

MR STUART DECLARED ELECTED MR HOGAN’S PETITION FAILS. Wellington, May 2. The Election Court’s judgment in the Rangitikei case decides that Mr Alexander Stuart was elected by a majority of seven valid votes. In the petition as framed 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 In these particulars some of the corrupt piactiees alleged were withdrawn, but others were particularised in detail at the trial. AU these particular charges were, with the exception of one, abandonee and withdrawn. The remaining charge was that shortly before the election, J. H. Fyfe, of Marton, engine-driver, was reinstated in the Railway Department as a result of respondent’s efforts, or those of some other person on his behalf, to induce him to vote or refrain from voting. It was plain after Fyfe had given 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 he saw that the charge could not be justified, very properly abandoned it. ADJOINING ELECTORATES.

In regard to claims by both parties that voters were illegally on the roll, it was plain that the number was such that on scrutiny of the result of the poll it might be affected. The voting papers of all such were accordingly examined and 35 were disallowed, reducing tho respondent’s majority to ten. The Court accepted tho 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. 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 tho voter was shown to bo residing in another district though all the time engaged in work in tho Rangitikei district, the Court held that he was illegally on the Rangitikei roll. Tho Court agreed that three absentee votes were properly rejeetd, one because the form of declaration was unsigned, the second because of unsimilarity in the signatures on the original application and declaration, and tho third because the application was signed by applicant’s father. PAPERS MARKED WITH CROSSES. In regard to papers marked merely by crosses against the name of a candidate, scrutiny revealed that there were 24, of which thirteen were for tho respondent and eleven for the petitioner. The Court rejected all except in cases where there was additional indication showing clearly for whom tho voter intended to vote. As instancing the uncertainty of intent in using a cross, the paper of one voter is mentioned where the cross was placed opposite tho 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 was made to the case, O’Brien v. Scddon, ami it was stated)

that the decision that crossed votes were valid (made on that occasion) was because for many years it had been the method prescribed in municipal elections in New Zealand. The municipal system had, however, been brought into conformity with parliamentary elections practice and the sole reason which had induced the Court in O’Brien v. Seddon to hold votes valid no longer existed. A scrutiny up to this point resulted in a reduction of respondent’s majority from 15 to 7.

COMPLAINT OF EARLY CLOSING.

Regarding the complaint that certain voters were precluded from voting at Murimotu through the polling booth closing before sever., the Court expressed itself as satisfied that although the booth was closed from Six onwards the deputy returning officer was on duty, and that from six onwards only one eligible person was prevented from voting. The Court had no hesitation in saying that that irregularity did not 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 the respondent’s agents interfered with 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 mado by the Reform League to F. M. Marlow, of Taihape, and A. Way, of Marton, were illegal under the Act and must be attributed to respondent, payments made by him or by the League or payments made to the two secretaries could not be 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 petitioner should pay the costs, charges and expenses of the respondent as between solicitor and client