Election Enquiry.

Manawatu Standard, Volume VIII, Issue 147, 2 December 1884, Page 2

Election Enquiry.

K.M. COURT, BULLS.

(Before JR. Ward, Esq., R.M.) The R.M. stated he held the Court to hear evidence on a petition of six electors of the Oroua Hiding Manawatu County, praying for an enquiry into certain v allegations re the late ordinary election of two Councillors. Mr Esatn appeared for the petitioners. Mr Stewart (one of the elected Councillors, appeared unrepresented). The R.M., pointed out that it was competent for him to cross examine, &c. Mr Thynne, as Chairman of County Council, applied to be represented at the enquiry, butibe &.M., decided that the "Council could not appear. Mr Esarn said allegations were laid under sections 50 and 10 of the Local Elections Act, Ist notice of time and place were not m proper form the full time 14 day 8 not having been given. (2). That one of the polling places had not been uced. (3). That seveial duly qualified persons had not been permitted to vote. And (4). Two names of persons paying rates were not on the roll, (if," however, these : names were not on the valuation roll he should not insist on this). He called Mr McCulloch who produced Electoral Roll of Oroua Ridingstated that the names of R. W. Bishop, A, Cockburn, Jas. Bowater, Thos. Masters, Anderson, and Alex., . McHardie appeared as electors] on, that roll, that E. W. Bishop and Alex., McHardie paid their rates on the 6th November. The names of Thomas Baxter and James Sexton do not appear on the valuation roll, their names appear as ratepayers by their own request after a resolution passed at a meeting held about the 3rd July. MrG, Williams was the Returning Officer appointed by the Council for the Oroua Riding. George Williams, (Sanson),, was appointed Returning Officer for Oroua Riding, considered that by advertising on 29th of Octoter, Wednesday to Wednesday, the 12th November, 14 days clear notice had been given and that under sub-section 14 he had the power lo appoint polling places after the nomination. He gave notice after the polling the first advertisement appeared on the 7th, nominations being on the third November. Mr Ward said the first and last days could not. be counted m the 11 days. Williams continued. Mr Bishop had applied for a vote, had refused him us Mr McCulloch had supplied him with a list of those electors who had paid their rates up to the 29th October, and Mr Bishop did not produce any receipt. He told me he had paid them, I did not doubt his word but acted according to instructions m letter produced from Mi McCulloch, tenor of which was that no ratepayer was to vote without producing receipt who had not paid rates prior to the 29th October. Alex., McHardie had also applied .and had been refused, he had appointed deputies for the polling booths, the first named polling booth was not used an he considered it was superseded by the later one. The R.M. considered it unnecessary to take the evideuce of Messrs Bishop and McHardie but m order to allow Mr fliynne to be heard as he had the power to call evidence he would exf rcise it and ask him to state what he knew. ' Mr Thynne then called attention to th*e difficulty of • carrying out the act strictly and to the hardship and expense of a fresh election, that a rate collector had no power to appoint a deptuy. Possible for a man to upset an election by paying his rates m Foxton on the very day and riding to Awahuri and getting refused voting. He considered the county electors to be those who had paid their rates previous to day of nomination. The County is interested as it is put to the expense of the fresh election. Mr Stewart considered that it had. only been shewn that two persons had been refused votes which would not affect the election. It would be hardship to those elected and an expense to the ratepayers and Council, He not having received copy of petition was not a great matter. The R.M. m giving judgment stated that the notice given had not been sufficient, the notice of election requiring 14 ojear days. The firs^ allegations he consideted were sustained. The second that one of* the polling places was not used, he did not consider of any moment, the pol-. ling places used being appointed uuder sub-section 14. The third that several qualified persons had been refused opened up a large question, hail the payment of rates been made in*, mediately before the day of polling. The date of payment being the 6th he must declare the election void. The R.M., then gave judgment for costs j advertising, £2 j witness expensef, Mr McCuiloch, 18s ; counsel's fee, £2 2s ; m favor of petitioners al« though he considered actually it was a hardship.