ELECTION PETITION

Northland Age, Volume 26, Issue 9, 23 June 1926, Page 7

ELECTION PETITION

♦ HEARD AT KAITAIA DECISION RESERVED

A petition alleging irregularities in connection with the recent election of members of the Mangonui Hospital Board came before Mr. F. H. Levien, S. M. at the Magistrate’s Court, Kaitaia, on i*aturday last. The petition, • hich was signed by A. D. Clemett, Mangonui, H. W. Jones. Mangonui. John Garton. Oruru, John Walton Oruru, Wm. Vickers Kohumaru, Frank Jacentho, Oruru R. T. Wrathall. Mangonui, was svyiut asunder. Your petitoners state that the said election was held on the 12th day of May 1926 when Charles Robert Adamson, Francis Hanks, Charles James Ernest Harriball, James Noble Berghan, George Cosson, Thomas Stewart Houston, Frederick Holder, Duncan Kerr Dysart, Edward Arthur Evans. Douglas Kitchen, Ludolph Joseph Matthews, Frank Maughan, Charles William Bloomtield Michie. and Richard Theophilus Wrathall were candidates and the returning officer has returned the said Francis Banks. James Noble Berghan, Ludolph Joseph •Matthews, Ernest Arthur Evans, Douglas Kitchen, Charles William Bloomfield Michie and Charles James Ernest Barriball as being dul> elected.

* 2. Your petitioners say that: —

(a) The powers reposed in the Governor General in Council by virtue of Section 3 of the Hospital Charitable Institutions Act 1925 have not been validty exercised and that the order in Council has purported is therefore void and ot no effect and that the Mangonui County Council is still the Hospital Board for the Mangonui Hospital District.

(b) No county roll was compiled for the use of the deputy returning officers at the respective polling booths and that consequently there was not sufficient or effective check against possible plural voting. (c) At the polling booth conducted in the Waitemata Chambers in the city of Auckland over twenty electors recorded their votes which said votes were included in the preliminary return* published but were all disallowed upon theofficial recount. Your petitioners are not aware upon what grounds the said votes were disallowed but your petitioners state that the disallowance of such votes could haye and did cause a material difference to the result ot the said election. (d) That certain electors whose names appeared on the said roll above referredto attendedthe poll and demanded to be allowed to vote but were refused. Wherefore your petitioners pray that it may be determined: — 1. That the said F. Banks, J.N. Berghan, L. J. Matthews, E. A. Evans, D. Kitchen, C. W. B. Michie and C. J. E. Barriball w ere not duly elected and that the said election was void. 2. That the Mangonui County Council is still in law the Hospital Board for the Mangonui Hospital district and that the members of the said Mangonui County Council namely A. H. Long, E. A. Evans, J. N. Berghan, T. S. Houston, W. Vickers, D. Kitchen C. J. E. Barriball and R. T. Wrathall, constiute the said Hospital Board. Mr C. F. C. Miller appeared for petitioners, and Mr A. Logan for respondents (C. B. Michie, J. N. Berghan, F. Banks, D. Kitchen and L. J. Matthews). Prior to the taking ot evidence argument took place as to whether the Court had power to deal >with the petition regarding the prder-in-Council. His Worship ruled that the Court was entitled to inquire into the result of the election, which ineludedpreliminaries.

Opening the case for petitioners Mr. Miller said the voting was very close, there being a margin of six votes between three candidates, which showed that it would take little to alter the personnel and policy of the Board. Mr. Miller dealt at length with the rolls used for the election, which comprised the eight Riding rolls, tome deputy returning officers being in the dark as to whether voters could cast more than one vote. There was a huge discrepancy between the provisional figures of the poll and the final official figures. He referred to the disallowing of the franchise to two returned soldiers whose rates for 1923-24 had been remitted by the Council and Board. Ne notice, he claimed, had been sent to these men. After covering the whole petition and quoting authorities, Mr. Miller claimed there were grounds for the poll to be declared void. At this stage Mr. Logan contended that Mr. Miller should say

if the Order-in-Counoil was good or bad. His Worship : He’s here to ask me that, but l am not prepared to express an opinion at present. John Garton, deputy returning officerat the Oruru booth, was the first witness called. The roll supplied him was, he said, the county roll for all the ridings, showing the number of votes each ratepayer was entitled to. He received no official instructions re single votes for the Hospital Board election and wired the chief returning officer to ascertain the position, receiving a reply that each voter was only entitled to one vote, and did not vote on the property qualification.

E. C. Matthews said he acted as a scrutineer, which wasa longish job. There was a good deal of plural voting, 30 or 40 votes being disallowed on this account. The votes from the Auckland booth were disallowed because they were not officially stamped. R. T. Wrathall said when he compared the final with rhe provisional figures and saw a difference of 235 he thought there must be something wrong. With the rolls used it was quite easy for plural voting to occur. He cited instances of how such voting could creep in. He remembered the Council passing a resolution remitting soldier settlers’ rates for 1923-24. Donald Matthews, a soldier settler, said the Council remitted his rates for 1923-24, but the following year’s demand showed no arreas. Nor did this year’s notice. He went to vote on May 12 and was told by the assistant count y clerk that he could not vote because his rates for 1923-24 had not been paid and the fact that t.'iey had been remitted made no difference. F. G. E. Cashman, who accompanied the previous witness to the po I, gave evidence on similar lines. He had paid all hiv rates with the exception of the amount remitt'd. Mr. Logan reviewed the evident e a considerable length. The petitioners had not proved that plural voting had been allowed and th :y had not asked for a magisterial recount. The roll used was the one provided by law. There were other irregularities in connection with the votes cast at the Auckland booth, it being found that partners holding the same land had voted at Auckland and Waihopo in respect of the one qualification. No one was appointed to vote for th* Parenga Kauri Oil Co., but when the rail went to Auckland after having been closed) a name was written in and a vote recorded. The disallowing of Auckland votes did not affect the result. Mr. Wrathall gat most of the votes there, but he was too far down the list to pull up, and Mr. Michie got one vote there. Apart from the question of the Order-in-Council, Mr. Logan contended that there was not sufficient evidence praduced to sustain the petition. The Court had no power to declare the Mangonui County Council to be still the Hospital Board as requested in the petition. Chas. McKinnon, returning officer tor the election, explained the scrutiny, a thorough check being made of votes from each booth lor plural voting. At the Auckland booth and at the Waihopo booth partners voted on the same qualification. A name had been inserted to vote for the Parenga Oil Co. after the roll had been closed. Sixteen papers ftom the Auckland booth did not have the official number, and were not stamped or initialled. He had given instructions to deputy returning officers that each voter was only entitled to one vote for the Hospital Board He had no complaints to make about the work of any of the deputies except the Auckland one. Quite a lot of dual voting took place, one man voting in three different ridings, all three being disallowed for the Hospital Board but allowed for the election of the County Council. In addition to the Auckland booth, about 20 other votes were disallowed. Regarding the soldier settlers, his instructions were not to sue for 1923-24 r ites, but they had to remain on the books three years before being written off. About 35 settlers had these rates remitted and seme were told that unless they were paid they would not be able vote. The election of the Whangarei County Council, Hospital and Harbour Boards, was conducted on the same lines as in Mangonui—riding rolls. Mr. Logan reiterated that there were no irregularities in the conduct of the poll and no evidence produced to warrant declaring the election void. His Worship: There are a number of indefinite allegations

about the conduct of the poll. Mr. Miller said it was sufficient tor petitioners to show that the system was defective and he considered the Court was justified in declaring the election void. The soldier settlers had been misled by the Council and it was a wrong thing to deny them a'vote. Stressing the width of power the Court had to deal with the case, Mr. Miller said the object of an election was to give a faithful reflection ot the opinion of the people, and if the Court had any doubt that the declared result of the poll did not reflect the opinion of the electors, then the election should be voided.

His Worship, in intimating that he would reserve his decision said there were some legal points at issue which required investigation.

A petition has been lodged by A. C. Douglas against the election of T. S. Houston as a member of the Mangonui County Council for the Kaitaia Riding on the grounds that he is not a ratepayer in the Riding. The matter will be decided by Mr. Levien, S. M., after legal argument.