Waipori Riding Election

Mt Benger Mail, 12 June 1935, Page 2

Waipori Riding Election

INQUIRY INTO CONDUCT ASKED FOR. At the Magistrate’s Court, Lawrence, on Thursday aftcrju.cn 11. E. Dixon, Esq., S.M.,sat In hear a protest against the deepen of Mr Robert Ceorge Cotton as representative of Waipori Riding in the Tuapeka County Council . The petition of Archibald Macdonald, and others, asking for the inquiry into the conduct of the election alleged:— 1. That Cecil Herbert Cotton, )f Waipori, was given more votes than he was entitled to give. 2. That George Matheson, of vVaipori, was given more votes hat he was entitled to give or Iternatively, that he was given .ore voles as the representative ■f George Matheson, deceased, to chieh the estate of the said leorge Matheson was not entitled. 3. That Robert George Colton ,vas given more votes than he was ■nl it led to give or, alternatively, that the said Robert George Cot ton had given three votes as the representative of the ('State ol Robert Cotton, deceased, to widen the estate of the said Robert Cot ‘on was not entitled. 4. That Guy Winchester Knight T Waikenriti, was given a vet cinch he was not entitled to give. •j. That James lb nry Cotton, o: Waipori, rnnholder, was given ;iore votes than he was entitled ... give, or alternatively, that In had given three votes as the rep nsentative of .lames Henry am' Robert. George Cotton, to widen the said James* Henry Cotton and Robert George Cotton, were not •nt it led. Mr T. O'Shea (Dunedin) ap e M .;nvd for the pH it loners and M ■' 1 hj yMe (Dunedin) w : th Mr R. C. Mi,ore for the respondent, Mr R G. Cotton. Mr Payne, before the facts of the petition were dealt with, asked permission to draw ids Worship’s attention to two points which might possibly lead to shortening the proceedings. These were: 1. That his Worship had al readv adjudicated on one pluiM af this election, and (2) That tin roll on winch the poll was taken was final. Mr O’Shea contended that the petition was a demand for an inquire into the conduct ol the elec ; ion as provided for b\ sect'mu ;> v of “The Local Elections and Polls Act, 192b,” and he submitted that his Worship should hear the evidence of the petitioners. IPs Worship intin at ml that In would hear Mr Payne »n the preliminary points rais d by him. Mr Payne submitted that tlm roll having been fixed, was final ind was, thei’efi re, a roll of persons qualified to volt at an elec-t-on : that the names of the par ties mentioned in the petition are ill on the roll and therefore entitled under sect-on 67 of "The Counties Act” to vote at the elecLon provided that the first three pHstions set out in section 23 of “The Local Elections and Polls Act” were answered, or could have been answered, in the .normative, and the fourth in tinnegative. After dealing with the steps necessary in the preparation of a roll he contended that electors d several i ppornmities of checking the roll —for example, by inspection of the roll at tin County Office: by objecting to tin i County Domicil against entries on he roll, and by an appeal to the magistrate from the County Conn ■il’s decision. He quoted analogous cases based on elections to the House of Representatives, chiefly the case ot the Wakanui election petition and contended that the law in force at that timwas practically the same as that now obtaining in local elections. 11., also referred to the case of the Hawke’s Bay, Taumarauui, aim Bay of Islands election petitions, h,.]d in 1915. where all the counsel engaged admitted that the roll must be treated as final and conclusive. He also referred to the ■lection petition over county voting decided in 1911 in Lawrence, by Mr J. H. Bartholomew, S.M., iiid by Mr E. C. Fatten in Auckland in 18911, when it was held that subject to the provisions o : ‘The Local Elections Act” as to putting of questions the roll must accepted as final and'conclusive. He argued further that th ■ k tit ion on account of the disput'd election could only demand an inquiry as to the “conduct” of the election of any candidate or .other person thereat and could not be availed of to attack tlx 1 quali Rations or number of votes of ; person who was on the roll unless be bad for instance voted twice, Mr O’Shea said the argument as as the roll being final could be dismissed by reference to section 12 of “The Local Elections and Polls Amendment Act, 1926,” which provided for a person who was not on the roll voting by declaration, and further, that section 62 of the 1925 Act expressly provided that the Magistrate should disallow the vole of every person who had voted, not being entitled to vote or had given more votes than he was entitled to give. He then went into some detail in connection with the votes recorded on behalf of the estate of Robert Cotton and George Matheson and claimed that these vites should not have been allowed aqd that in one case the pro-

perty should have been placed in the name of the life tenant and not in that of the executor. It was then arranged after formal evidence was given on behalf petitioners that the petition should be adjourned as the Magistrate intimated that he would reserve his decision on the points raised by Mr Payne. If ho decided that the roll was not final counsel could appear before him in Dunedin later to argue upon the votes in detail. Formal evidence was then given by Mr R. F. Batchelor, Comity clerk, as to the preparation of the rolls, the properties held by those whose votes were attacked and as tc the notices of sale or transfer received by him. The proceedings were then adjourned.