THE PETITION AGAINST SIR R. STOUT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9399, 4 January 1894, Page 5

THE PETITION AGAINST SIR R. STOUT.

——♦——■■•■"'- ■ '■■'- « [BY TELEGRAPH.—OWK CORRESPONDENT.] Wellington, Wednesday. Captain Jackson Barry this evening publishes an advertisement in, the papers in which he say?:—"l wish it publicly known that I have nob authorised any person to use my name in any petition whatever as to the return of Sir.Robert Stout, and further state that I have not' made any bet with any person on the result of the Wellington election." As yet the names subscribed to the petition have not been divulged, MrW. B. Edwards (petitioners' counsel) not wishing to publish their names. The petition, ib appears, was laid on the table of the returning officer in his office, signed and sealed, and therefore the names cannot at present be known. Whether the cheque for £200, as "security for the costs of a judicial enquiry, was enclosed -is not known, - the petitioners' counsel observing a "judicial or judicious reticence" on this subject. \ Everything about the affair, said an elector to me this morning "has an untidy kind of look." Though great interest is taken in the outcome of the business, the "air of mystery" that accompanies it is beginning to discount the grave nature of the charges made. It is believed that . if the petitioners should succeed in unseating Sir Robert Stout, the Wellington people would again return him against all comers. The present attempt has awakened sympathy for Sir Robert as an ill-used man, and is regarded as an affront of the grossest character to the electors who returned him at the top of the poll. Many people think that if Sir Robert Stout should be unseated he will be dis- , qualified from offering himself to the electors again for three years. This is, evidently, a mistake, and when the misapprehension is removed, it is possible that nothing more may be heard of the petition! The Corrupt Practices Act Amendment of 1882, clause 4, says—"Any person, whether a candidate or not, who shall, on the trial of an election petition, be reported by the Election Court as having been guilty of a corrupt practice, shall only be subject to such of the incaf>acities (if any) for such time not exceedng three years, as the Election Court shall state in their opinion he ought to be subject to, or as the Judge presiding at the trial shall order such person so convicted to be subject to, as the case may be." The judgment, in effect, may or may not be disqualifying. The Act of 1881 did disqualify for the specific period of three years, but under the Amending Act of 1882 the Judge may award disqualification for a period of a single day, and the seat might be again contested by the unseated member. Although most extraordinary motives are assigned for the petition, and much speculation is indulged as to its origin and promoters, I do not yet deem it prudent to say anything under this head. One thing is clear and that is that the "compositor" and the "waiter" whose names are said to be signed to the petition, are not the real instigators. - '