TAUMARUNUI SEAT

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9044, 15 May 1915, Page 8

TAUMARUNUI SEAT

DECLARED VACANT SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE NOT RIGHTLY ON ROLL. Press Association. AUCKLAND, May 14. Their Honours Mr Justice Cooper and Mr Justice Chapman, delivered judgment at the Supreme Court this morning in the Taumarunui election petition case, in which Mr A. H. Johnstone and Mr .Sharpies appeared for the petitioner (C. K. Wilson) and Mr G. C. Finlay and Mr J. D. Vernon for tho respondent (Wt T. Jennings). - Tho court decided that the election for the Taumarunui seat must be declared void on the'ground that , the elected candidate, Mr Jennings, did not at the time of the election possess an elector’s qualification to bo a candidate, as Ins name was not on the roll for New Plymouth, which the court decided was his place of residence, and he had not qualified as a voter in tho Taumarunui electorate, to tho roll of which he had transferred his name some time before the election. In the course of their decision the court dealt at length with tho first and principal point raised —tho right of the respondent to stand as a candidate for the seat. Discussing respondent’s claim for transfer to tho Taumarunui roll on November 9th and 10th, 1914, Their Honours remarked:

“The question is: What rule is to guide us in determining as a matter of fact whether respondent had resided in Taumarunui district for a month immediately preceding the date of his registration on the roll of that district? In general terms ‘residence’ usually imports some idea of fixity, though not necessarily of permanence, and the claim made here by respondent is that he resided either at the house of his friend where he knew there was always a room available for him (though ho had no sort of tenure), or at the ho tel at Te Kuiti, where lie usually stayed. He must, however, show that in the popular sense ho had for that month resided in the district. It is not sufficient that he made a prolonged visit. It may he that a poison who, owing to the nature of his occupation, wanders around a district without leaving it, has a claim to the franchise; but that is not the respondent’s condition. Respondent had a i ‘ place of abode ’ within section 60, at New Plymouth, and within the principle of all authorities he had a right to claim that he resided there. The house belonged to his wife, and it was the matrimonial home of both: Ho had an incontrovertible right to go and remain there whenever it suited him. It was, in fact and in law, his home. It seems to us that the real position: was that he thought he had hotter transfer his registration to the’ district in which'he took so’ great an interest, and which ho desired to represent; but he had, never removed thither or' become in any sense a resident there.

“ If the question arose in another: •way it would in such a case he unjust to deprive a man of' his vote iu. tho district where he resided merely because he had gone on a prolonged electioneering tour to another. We are of opinion he did not reside in Taumamnui, but that he did reside in New Plymouth. As he ivaf not on any other roll, it follows that wo must, in terms of section 196, subsection (f) disallow bis vote.” After holding that as the respondent was not an elector within the definition he could not ‘be described as “a person registered as an elector,” the court adds:—“ln the result we are compelled to hold that the respondent was not at the date of tho election qualified to .be elected as a member of the House of Representatives.” IRREGULARITIES. . The court then referred to certain other questions winch were raised by the petition, as to which a great deal of evidence was called and to Which arguments of counsel were addressed. “As to irregularities at Mahirakau, the conclusion is that the only provision for preserving secrecy was .such as the voter must create himself by taking care to lean over his paper’and fold it before ho altered his position. Tins must be contrasted with the requirements of the statute. The principle ot election by secret ballot was disregarded and could not be observed at this booth when no provision was made and no adequate precaution taken to ensure secret voting, and each voter ivas' left to his own measures to ensure tho secrecy of his vote. It appears to ns that both these conditions would have to concur before a court could pronounce that the irregularities were such as ought to be condoned by it. Hero a timid voter might have been inclined to alter his or her vote rather than run the risk of having it disclosed, and that is what the ballot is meant to guard against.”

Counsel for the respondent argued that the court ought to say that no such effort had ensued because notoriously most of the people who voted there belonged to the Labour party and were supporters of the respondent and would have voted for him Under any conditions. When tho court declines to allow an irregularity to affect the result it usually does so because it can see that, having regard to the number ot votes polled at tiie place where it occurred, the irregularity could not have affected the result. The figures hero do not tend to that conclusion.’ The majority was 205. From this, according to the admissions made at the hearing, votes which must be disallowed amount to about 35, about tho same number are seriously challenged, some of which would certainly have to be disallowed. If these are taken together the majority secured by the respondent is absorbed. To ascertain the actual result a scrutiny would be necessary -as we cannot speculate as to who has the benefit of the 70 challenged votes. IRREGULAR. ENROLMENT FORMS. “The irregularity committed by J. B. Young in sending out for signature a number of enrolment forms already signed by him as a witness was thus referred to by the court:— ‘There was another irregular proceeding as to which we think wo ought to express our opinion. A man named James Burns Young was employed for some time prior to the election in the capacity of agent for the Licensed Victuallers’ Association. He busied himself in collecting applications from numerous persons to be placed on the roll, and on the day, of the poll was engaged marshalling motor-cars for tho liquor party. He says he never was an aeent for the respondent, hut once telegraphed to him that he was short of forms of application for enrolment. He sent in some 600 of these applications, most of which, it was admitted.

were made by persons entitled to be on the rolli The most reckless, and, we think, unscrupulous irregularity was committed in’connection with this proceeding. ; Respondent was in no way to : hlamo for these ■ proceedings, and Young was, as we have said, in doing these acts ■ the agent of persons engaged in the" liquor trade only. The: votes pf the clectdrstso placed oh the roll have been decided by the Full Court; to be valid, despite irregularities, when the' election is qualified. In the'part they, took in the proceedings, the electors probably acted in ignorance. Wo do-not treat th:s as an irregularity affecting the result ol the election, but we mention it as a grave question may . arise hereafter as to how far serious irregularities committed hy a person so closely connected with another branch .of the day’s proceedings may affect the result’ of; an election.” : ft ELECTION VOID.

The court said there "were other ir-, regularities alleged, and in part prow ed. These irregularities, taken together, might have added some 'Weight to that at Mahirakauj but the court did not pronounce any opinion as to what result would have ensued had it been obliged to consider the matter. “Wo axe compelled to decide this case upon the question of the qualification or want of qualification of tho respondent. We do not definitely determine tho effect of the proved irregularities. For this reason, too, we have not thought it necessary to order a scrutiny' or to express any opinion upon the numerous and difficult questions as to the particular claims to vote that have been challenged. Tn the result, wehold tho electiqh to he void, and shall certify to the Speaker accordingly.”' Air • Ostler, rvho represented Air Johnstone (for the petitioner) at the giving of the court’s decision, suggested that each party should be ordered to pay its own costs, subject to respondent bearing the addition! 1 expense incurred by tho reference of certain legal points to tho Full Court at Wellington. Air Finlay expressed his thanks to the opposing counsel, and accepted the offer, which the court remarked to be an exceedingly generous one. Costs for tho Full Court proceedings were fixed at twenty guineas, and an order was made, in accordance with Air Ostler’s suggestion. OTHER PROCEEDINGS POSSIBLE. At the request of the registrar (Air F. W. Schramm), Air Ostler referred to the question of a possible indemnity for John Burns Young. Air Justice Cooper replied that seeing Young’s evidence had been so untrustworthy and unbelievable, the court had decided not to issue a certificate of indemnity. Air Ostler then informed Their Honours that the six mqnths within which Young could be prosecuted had expired, but that the Registrar, acting on the advice of the Crown Law Office, had already laid an information against Young, and would now take proceedings. MR JENNINGS’ POSITION. A question has arisen as to the eligibility of Air Jennings for candidature at the by-election for tie Taumarunui seat. Authorities consulted this morning expressed the opinion that as it is not necessary for the candidate to be on tho roll as an elector of the district he actually seeks to represent in Parliament, so long as he is on the electoral roll of some other district, and as the court has decided that New Plymouth is his place of residence, he will be entitled to enrolment upr„n declaration on the Taranaki electoral roll, from which he obtained transference to tho Taumarunui roll last November. In such case. Air Jennings, as an elector on the New Plymouth roll, would bo quite eligible as a candidate for the Taumarunui or any other seat in New Zealand. STATE OF PARTIES. TK« unseating of Air W. T. Jennings means a further alteration in tho state of parties. Two seats in the House are

now vacant, and the position of the Government cannot be determined until tlie by-eleptions have been decided. The state of parties is now; — .Government 39 ■: Opposition 33 Independent (Mr Tau Bjenare) 1