ELECTION INQUIRY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23528, 17 June 1938, Page 10

ELECTION INQUIRY

CONDUCT OF CROMWELL CONTESTS RETURNING OFFICER AT FAULT (Special to Dailt Times) CROMWELL, June 16. The magistrate (Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M.) gave his decisions to-day in the petitions of inquiry into the conduct of the municipal elections of the Borough of Cromwell for the office of Mayor and two representatives on the Central Otago Electric Power Board. The magistrate, in summing up, said it was not suggested that any of the candidates were guilty of any irregularity. The trouble was due to the returning officer (Mr A. Stephens), who perhaps had not been fully conversant with the provisions of the Act. In regard to the first allegation, that the role was not in order, he held that there was a roll in compliance with the Act. The returning officer had what was a copy of the roll, but he had the true roll in the building, and this could have been produced at a second’s notice. Cromwell was only a small place, with only one polling booth, and there was no proof that any person had been deprived of voting. Mr Stephens said he had only followed the existing practice. There was a certain amount of responsibility resting with the Mayor, and this should be drawn attention to. With regard to Dr Austin, it was not proved that he had no qualification to vote. With regard to Mr J. C. Parcell he held that Mr Parcell did not hold any appointment with the borough, but just did what work that was put his way. He did not have any work on hand at the date of his nomination or election. On perhaps two occasions more than six persons were in the booth and more than two were in the inner compartment at one time, but there was no evidence that this had affected the poll. With regard to the mayoral election, there was a considerable difference in the figures, and the closing at 6 p.m. did not affect the issue, as there was on proof that anyone was preventer, from voting. There had been an official recount since, and the petition regarding the election of Mr Parcell would be dismissed.

The same remarks applied to the petition for the Power Board inquiry, regarding the election of Mr T. Blackie. His election would stand. In the case of Mr L. M. Jolly, however, there were only 10 votes between him and Mr C. W. J. Roberts, and he was not satisfied, /as it was possible that one or two voters went away at a busy time of the day or that some arrived after 6 p.m. He, therefore, held that the election of Mr Jolly was inval'd. On the mayoral petition the returning officer would bo ordered to pay solicitor's fee (£3 3s), with costs (15s). On the Power Board petition the returning officer was ordered to pay the objectors’ solicitor’s fee (£2 2s), with costs (£2 2s), and he ordered that the deposits be returned to the petitioner.