TAUMARUNUI ELECTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 15912, 8 May 1915, Page 9

TAUMARUNUI ELECTION.

PETITION BEFORE I COURT.

240 VOTES IN QUESTION.

CASE OF J. B. YOUNG.

MR, JENNINGS'S QUALIFICATION.

Tin; Taiimanmui election petition was further considered by Mr. Justice Cooper and Mr. Justice Chapman yesterday.. Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for petitioner, Mr. C. K. Wilson, and Mr. G. P. Finlay for respondent,.. Mr. W. T. Jennings. In the course of his argument, Mr. Johnstone referred to various groups of persons whose votes, he submitted, should be disallowed. There were several aliens, two infants, nine persons who admittedly lived outside the district, and two others, including the respondent, whose residence outside the district was disputed. There was a general group of people, who, at the time they claimed registration, had not fulfilled the residential requirements.

Mr. Justice Cooper remarked that there was no evidence that those last-mentioned were not qualified. Counsel relied solely upon the invalidity of the forms. The Court would have to consider the effect of the decision of the Full Court on that aspect.

Mr. Johnstone agreed that he relied on the invalidity of the forms, except one in the general list he had mentioned. Among other groups were full-blooded Maoris and all persons, who, at the time they claimed registration, had not fulfilled tho residential qualifications. Qualifications of Voters. Mr. Justice Cooper: If, at the time they lodged their applications, they had not resided the statutory period in the district, they were not properly on the roll.

Mr. Johnstone : That is bo. My reason for submitting that is that {lie extent of residence is a matter of qualification, not of procedure. -1 contend that the Full Court upheld that disqualification.

Mr. Justice Chapman : Suppose there is an error in the application, is there not a presumption that the registrar made further inquiry? He can do so. Mr. Justice Cooper : We have also to consider that at the tima the rolls were closed all of those voters, or nearly all of them, were entitled to be on the roll if they had lodged their claims at the proper time.

Ml'. Johnstone : Yes; but you do not know whether a man completes his, qualification after being enrolled.- He may enrol on October 26 and fail to complete his three months' qualification before he votes. '

Mr, Justice Cooper: Supposing a man had been, on October 26. in the district for more than a month, he would be entitled to register next morning at ten o'clock, or, in fact, at five minutes after midnight; ■

Mr. Johnstone abandoned a case where a registration had been made on October 27, but ho contended that in the other cases voters should be disqualified.

His Honor put the hypothetical case of a man who claimed to vote and said he was naturalised. . That statement was not true, but his papers were in, and he was put on the roll. Four or five days later bis naturalisation Was granted. Did counsel say that that.man was illegally on the Toll? ■.-,., :

Mr. Johnstone; Yes, and, moreover, that man did not make. a true statement. • Mr. Justice..- Cooper said v it was a question as to how the judgment of the Full Court would affect that point. The main question : before the present Court , was: ', Had 'a person a status, not when he was put .'on the roll, but when he cast his vote? The question was: Was he a person qualified to vote? Three Weeks' Work. It was pointed out by Mr. Justice Cooper that if .the Court ordered a scrutiny—a , point that had yet to be considered— would become necessary to open every ballot-paper to the number of 7000 odd. That would probably take three weeks or more.. ~,,„. . Counsel said that even *if the ballotpapers were opened, it would not bo possible to identify the voting papers where the counterfoil was missing. • . , In such case, commented Mr. Justico Cooper, ft scrutiny might be ineffective. Mr Johnstone referred to the judgment of the Full Court, which included, among persons whose votes must be disallowed as those of unqualified persons, all who had not resided in the electoral district for which they had claimed a vote for the month immediately proceeding registration on the roll of the district.

Mr. Jennings's Majority. Replying to a query* from the Bench, . counsel said the admissions had roughly reduced the number of votes asked to be disallowed to about . 60. ~.'.. ~ Mr. Firilay : Mr. Jennings's majority , at the election was 205. „ ■ Mr. Justice Chapman:. Then if all those 60 votes are disallowed you still have 145 against you. Irregularities Relied Upon. Mr. Johnstone responded that he did not rely on the actual, number of votes disallowed, but more upon irregularities. He argued that a scrutiny should be ordered. and stated that at several booths counterfoils were missing. Taking in the 25 votes quito unaccounted for there were 376 cases of votes which could not be idontifiod with roll numbers. It was possible also that under the heading of plural voting alone 156 cases would be discovered.. i It was argued by Mr. Johnstone that he had substantially proved, all the irregularities alleged in the petition, although he had not been able to brine, proof in the case of every particular vote. J, B. Young's Actions. Counsel then'camo to the case of James Burns Young. • ■ ', ._, There could, said Mr. Justice Cooper, have been nothing more irregular than Young's action in sending in a lot of claims which ho witnessed without having Been them signed: He admitted, 20 such cases- ~.,.,■' Mr. Johnstone: I submit there were more than 20. The evidence was sufficient to suggest thatthe made a practice of it. No pains were spared by the electoral office to mane it plain to the people how the forms were to be filled out. Young must have known exactly what was required. Young was a most energetic man, having placed .about 600 people on the roll He went to a quarry and got five Maoris to send forms in on the ground that thcro was to bo* no Maori election that year. When the case was opened I knew of four instances of claims having been attested by Young and subsequently signed by the claimants. One witness proved twomore. I selected forms at random, and in almost every case Young admitted they were signed by him before they were signed by the claimant*, I was able to take 16 from a bundle and proved 15 of them. His evidence as to the number is entirely unreliable. Ho was obviously a man who bad no sense of his duty because, when confronted by Your Honor with having done a highly improper thing, he turned round and said " That was a technical breach." . Mr. Justice Cooper: The matter and manner of his evidence show that ho was unworthy of belief. Mr. Johnstone: That is so, and I submit that the inference which will be drawn from his. conduct is not that he returned 20 or'4o forms improperly, but that he made a practice of it. He was a paid servant/- of the Licensed. Victuallers' Association-si man o whose - business it was to get claims led in, and he did it in the. easiest possible way for himself. Young's conduct afforded evident of irregularities of the most serious and far-reaching kind. Not only was ? possible that persons. were put on the roU without qualification, but the .whole

» . ,'. ft '■ . declaration which wag required to.be made was done away with. '■ » In regard to the question as to whether Young was an agent of Mr. Jennings, counsel quoted cases on the point to show that he was."

It could not bo said, he continued, that the election was other than in doubt. There were still about 240 votes in question. "" ...

Was Mi. Jennings Qualified to Stand?

Mr. Johnstone then came to the question, as to whether Mr. Jennings was entitled to be a candidate at the election. It was submitted that he was not so entitled. He was not qualified by law to be an elector in the district, was wrongly on the roll, and, therefore, was not qualified to stand as a candidate. The matter resolved itself into a question of residence.- Was Mr. Jennings a resident in' the Taumarunui district for one month previous to the closing of the roll? There must be some permanence about an individual's residence. Visits for business or pleasure did not show residence. The home he maintained for his wife and family should be treated as his residence.

Mr, Justice Cooper: A man may reside in two or three places. Counsel : I submit that, for the purposes of the Electoral Act, he could. not do 80.

The hearing was adjourned until today.