THE KAIPARA LICENSING ELECTION PETITION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12270, 14 May 1903, Page 7

THE KAIPARA LICENSING ELECTION PETITION.

JUDGMENT GIVEN.

ELECTION DECLARED VOID. Yesterday forenoon at the Police Court Mr. T. Hutchison, 8.M., gave his decision in the recent Kaipara licensing eleotion case, In doing so he outlined the circumstances, stating that the petition was one filed under the Regulation of Local Eleotions Act, 1876, by six electors of the Kaipara district, praying that the election of a. Licensing Committee for that district, held on March 25 last, might be declared void. The grounds of the petition were said to be—(l) That the poll was not open within the- hours- required by the Act; and (2) that the polling booth _at Kaukapakapa, advertised by the returning officer as a polling booth in such election, was not opened on the day of sutli election, and that in consequence of such omission no votes were recorded there, and many electors resident at such place, and desirous of recording their votes, were thereby prevented from voting at such eleotion. The election was regularly held on March 25 last, after due notice, and the list of polling-places, including Kaukapakapa. was advertised. Ten candidates contested the election, and the difference between the votes cast for the fifth successful candidate

(725) and those for the next on the poll wa* 48. The five candidates first upon the poll were declared elected. It was proved that the polling booth at Kaukapakapa. was not opened at any time during the polling day, through the omission of the returning officer. The _ number of electors on the roll whose residence was given as Kaukapakapa was 201, of whom only 17 recorded their votes. It was further proved, on the first day of the hearing, that 10 named electors attended at Kaukapakapa on polling day to vote, ' and were prevented from so doing by the non-opening of the booth there, and subsequently a witness was called, who produced and verified a document purporting to be a statement by 49 additional electors, resident at Kaukapakapa, that they had been prevented from recording their votes, as they desired to do, in consequence of there being no booth at Kaukapakapa as publicly notified. After referring to the conduct of the election of a licensing committee His Worship quoted the sections of the Act bearing on the case, which provided (section 50, sub-section 2) that "where the poll was open beyond and was not open within the hours required," and (sub-section 6, section 50) " where any other irregularity occurred in the proceedings which, in the opinion of the magistrate, tended to defeat fairness of the election;" then, in suoh case tho whole election was void. It was not quite clear to his mind that the opening oi | not opening of a single polling booth was an opening or not opening of the poll generally under sub-section 2; but, in view of the result he had arrived at, it was. unnecessary to decide that point. It was plain that ii it was not, the non-opening of a polling booth was at any rate an irregularity under subsection 6, because the process by quo warranto having been abolished by the Retaliation of Local Elections Act, 1876, there would otherwise be no remedy in a case where the legal hours of polling were curtailed or extended. If the non-opening of a single booth amounted to a breach of subsection 2, it was plain that the election must be declared void without further question ; if. as he rather thought, that the nonopening was only an irregularity, then "the further question had to be decided whether the irregularity had tended to defeat the fairness of the election. His Worship, after quoting authorities in support, said that an irregularity had been proved which tended to defeat the fairness of the election. Put otherwise, the evidence was, to his mind, such as to load to the reasonable belief that a majority might have been prevented from recording their votes. There was evidence that at least 58 voters were prevented from voting at tho ejection, and that number might certainly have altered the state of the poll, and so affected the fairness of tho election. He concluded, therefore, that tho election must be declared void. Mr. Jackson Palmer appeared in support of the petition at the hearing.