VOTING RIGHTS AT BOROUGH ELECTIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10081, 17 March 1896, Page 6

VOTING RIGHTS AT BOROUGH ELECTIONS.

AN IMPORTANT OPINION. ReckntljY the Devonport Borough Council asked the opinion of Messrs. Devoro and Cooper (solicitors to the Council) as to whether one person could exercise any more than five votes at any election—that is, can one person use five votos for his own property, fivo as trustee for ft property, and fivo as the head partner in a firm ? At the moeting of tho Council last night tho following letter from Messrs. Devore and Cooper was receivod :— "We are of opinion that for tho eloction of councillor a burgess is entitled to vote in rospocfc of his own property on the scale of votes provided by section 65 of tho Municipal Corporations Act, 1886, and separately in respect of other property jointly ownod by him with other persons or in respect of which he represents under section 13 of tho Rating Act, 1894, a bank, joint stock company, firm, or joint tenants. Wo think that the principle recognised under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1886, in rospeefc to the election of councillors is the representation of proporty, and that two classes of property are provided for : First, the individual property of a burgess, and for which ho is separately and personally ratod; and, second, the property of banks, companies, firms, or joint tenants for which the first name on the roll is only tho nominal occupier, bub in respect of which rates can bo recovered, nob only from the nominal occupier and tho property, bub also from the banks, firms, and other persons who are tho real or joint owners of the property. In the result, therefore, wo are of opinion that one person may in such caso oxercise—(l) All the votes he is entitled to in his own right and for his own property; and (2) votes in respect of the proporty of which under section 13 of tho Rating Acb he is by statutory enactmonb tho nominal occupior. This does' nob apply to Mayoral elections where tho vote is givon to the man and not to the property. There havo been no decisions by any Court of law on this question bo far as wo are aware, and we, thereforo, have nothing to guide us beyond the statutes themselves. We think, however, that the construction wo have placed on the statute law is the proper ono; and, if there is any contest on the point, that the Courts will most probably dehormine the question in the manner wo have indicated. We think, therefore, thab in any election for a Councillor, if any votos of the class wo have mentioned are tendered the returning officer ought to reccivo the rotes, leaving it to a defeated candidato to raise objoction by petition, when, if tho objection is held sound, the Court would then strike out tho votes so recorded."