LOCAL OPTION POLL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12229, 26 March 1903, Page 6

LOCAL OPTION POLL.

.-,:■ «. .■; ■■■\y::mmm I THE PORT CHALMERS CASE, • ' ARGUMENT IN COURT OP APPEAR [Bt TELEGEAITI.— ASSOCIATION',] • Wellington, Wednesday. In the Court of Appeal to-day the case of Graham and others v. O'Callaghan was con, ' tinned. This is a case in which appeal is ' made from the decision of Mr. JusticeVWji. liams prohibiting Mr. Graham, S.M., f ro ,L folding an inquiry into the validity of the local option poll at Port Chalmers, on. the ground that he it. not a magistrate of th» Magistrate's Court at Port Chalmers within the meaning of section 43 of the Regulation of Local Elections Act, 1876. Mr. MaeDonaS addressed the Court for the appellants B« submitted that if section 43 of the Regulations of Local Elections Act was construed so as to refer to Mr. Carew only, a grave injustice would be done, and they would be altogether deprived of their right, the time having ©v. pired within which the inquiry could be held by Mr. Carew. The section being open to two constructions, counsel contended that the one should be adopted which did not; ' lead to such an injustice. Mr. Adams then 1 ' addressed the Court on behalf of the respondent. Ho submitted that the Regulations ©{ Local' Elections Act sets up a special tribunal and designates a particular person who is to constitute it. That particular person must be ascertained, and he and he only can hold an inquiry under the Act. Mr. Carew and Mr. Graham aro not, _ he contended, col. leagues who decide magisterial work at Dune! din and Port Chalmers. Mr. Graham is - official assignee at Dunedin, and holds also an appointment as stipendiary magistrate, and as stipendiary magistrate he has exercised criminal jurisdiction under the Justices of the Peace Act regularly at Dunedin, and has ' 4 occasionally sat in place of Mr. Carew in civil cases, both at Dunedin and at Port Chalmers. Counsel contended that foi the purpose of ascertaining who is magistrate of the Court at Port Chalmers the Court must look only at what has taken place at Port Chalmers, and cannot regard anything which may have been done at Dunedin. All ; that the. evidence showed as regards Port Chalmers was that Mr. Graham had occasionally sat at Port Chalmers -by arrangement with Mr. Carew. Mr. Carew being the magistrate who had regularly and continuously sat at Port Chalmers and Mr. Graham having only occasion' .ally sat there by arrangement with him there could be no question which was magis- '. trate of Port Chalmers Court within the meaning of the Act. Mi. Adams also re-'* viewed the provisions of the Magistrate's Courts Act, 1893, at length in support of his ! contention. Mr. Hosking having replied the Court took time to consider its judgl ment.