THE PATE SEAT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11781, 10 October 1901, Page 5

THE PATE SEAT.

ELECTION DECLARED VOID. [BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

Wanganui, Wednesday. Judgment was given this afternoon in. the Supreme Court, by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Mr. Justice Williams, in the Pate?, election petition case.

The Chief Justice, after reviewing the petition and its amendments, held that the Court had no power to add new claims to the petit-ion, and therefore disallowed the amendments. Hi's Honor pointed out that a petition must- state the facts and the grounds relied on in its prayer, but need not state particulars. The Election Petitions Act provided that a petition shall allege specific grounds on which the petition shall be filed, and on no other grounds, and that the petition must be lodged within 23 days after the declaration of the election. In the present case two primary facts, or additional grounds of the petition, were alleged m the amendment, whereas amendments were only allowed where the alterations were on secondary facts, such, for instance, as the substitution of the name Rata for Deverhope, or Rangitikei for Siiverhope. With respect to the special ground of the petition, which was that the returning officer wrongfully disallowed the vote of Frederick Chas. Saphir, of Taylorville, it appeared that Saphir's name was not on the roll, and therefore he should not have received a ballot-paper. His Honor, therefore, held that there were no grounds under this head for declaring the election void. As to the case of the Nesbitt-s, whose votes were both disallowed, His Honor said the evidence showed that the person on the roll was the younger Nesbitt, and therefore the petition would fail on this ground. The ground that the Makirikiri booth had been closed had been abandonee by the petitioner. As to the absence 01 the deputy-returning officer from Mangaonoho booth during the lunch-hour, the evidence of young Haselden was to the effect that no one came to vote, 'lliere was the auditional fact that not one person was produced by the petitioner to prove that the absence of the deputy prevented a single vote from being recorded, and that i 0 booth in question was at a smail country place. On this ground the election could not be declared void, though there was an irregularity on the part of the deputy-returning officer. Then they came to the last ground of the petition, that an elector named John Williamson, on the roll as *' John Williams," was not allowed to vote bv the deputy-returning officer at the Hunterville polling-booth, although he rightly claimed to be the person named " John Williams" on the said roll. The evidence showed that the registrar sent the name of John Williamson to the printer, but the name was printed as John Williams. There was no John Williams, carpenter. John Williamson asked for a voting-paper, but the deputy-returning officer declined tc give him one. The question was, Ought he to have been allowed to vote, and that, seeing that there was only a majority of one, was it a reasonable inference that the result was affected thereby, and should the election be set aside? His Honor then proceeded to quote a number of cases on the subject, the purport of which was to show that persons whose names were wrongly spelled on the roll should not be debarred from voting, and that elections had been declared void because of refusal to allow such persons to vote. In the present- case it had been clearly proved that John Williamson was the person entitled to vote, and tho de-puty-returning officer, if he had any doubt about the matter, should have referred it to the returning officer. Therefore, on the ground that John Williamson should have been allowed to vote, the election must be declared void. As to the question of costs, the petitioner had failed in the amendment, and had only succeeded in one of the six grounds of the petition. Respondent was in no way responsible for the mistake of the deputy-returning officer, and there was no reflection on his (respondent's) conduct whatever. lie would therefore order that each party should pay his own costs.

His Honor Mr. Justice Williams then delivered his judgment, concurring with the Chief Justice's decision. «■

[by TELEGRAPH.—SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.] Wellington, Wednesday.

On behalf of both sides of the House, Mr. Massey to-day telegraphed to Mr. Haselden regretting the result of the election petition in Connection with the Patea seat. Mr. Massey also added that he hoped to see the late member returned with a 200 majority.