THE GREY LYNN ELECTION PETITION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12609, 25 June 1904, Page 7

THE GREY LYNN ELECTION PETITION.

DISMISSED BY THE MAGISTRATE. Judgment in regard to the Grey Lynn borough election petition, the argument in which was taken on Monday last, was delivered by Mr. C. 0. Kettle, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. Mr. T. Cotter received the judgment on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. Bailey (for Mr. J. R. Reed) on behalf of the returning officer (Mr. R. H. Irwin). In giving judgment, Mr. Kettle said that it was admitted that notice of the resignation of Mr. G. B. Proud was received by the returning omcer on March 28. Section 46 of the Regulation of Local Elections Act, 1876, provided that the returning officer, on receiving notice of a vacancy, "shall forthwith, by public notice, appoint a day, not less than 20 nor more than 25 clear days, from the occurrence, of such vacancy for the election to fill the same." The returning officer should thus have appointed a day not earlier than April 17 nor later than April 93. As a matter of fact, he appointed April 2'f, giving notice of the election by advertisement in the newspapers, of April 5. The election resulted in the return of Mr. Baildon, whereupon certain electors, who were apparently dissatisfied with the result, petitioned under section 48 for an order declaring the election void under section 50, sub-section 1, which read: "That any notice of the time or place of an election or the situation of polling booths, was not given within the time or in the manner herein required." Sub-section 6of the same section provided, as another ground of petition, "that any other irregularity occurred in the proceedings which, in the opinion of the magistrate, tended to defeat the fairness of the election." That ground, however, was not taken by the petitioners. The first question to be considered was whether the returning officer had failed to comply with section 46 in regard to giving notice. The point was, what was the meaning to be given to the word "forthwith?" In his opinion, "forthwith" meant within a reasonable lime, to all the circumstances, and he did not think he would bo justified, looking at the whole circumstances, in holding that the delay of seven days ixl giving the public notice was so unreasonable as to justify the Court in declaring the election void, more especially as it was not alleged or suggested that the fairness of the election had been defeated. It was true that the returning officer had appointed a day for the election beyond the limit provided in section 46, but in his (Mr. Kettle's) opinion that excess of authority or jurisdiction was an irregularity and was not within subsection 1 of section 50. " The fairness of the election (as referred to in sub-section 6) was not in question, and he could see no reason for declaring it void. It was also contended that the election should be declared void on the ground that notice was not given "in the manner" required by the Act, but he held that the notice, which was published in the newspapers, of April 5, had been given as required by section 2. The petition would be dismissed. - Mr. Bailey asked .for costs. Mr. Cotter submitted* that the case was not one for costs, as it was admitted that an irregularity had occurred. Mr. Rattle said the case was hardly one for costs. The cost of advertising the petition would, of course, have to be borne by the petitioners, but he would make no other order as to costs.