CITY COUNCIL ELECTION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25572, 27 June 1944, Page 4

CITY COUNCIL ELECTION

RECOUNT UNWARRANTED HEAVY COSTS AGAINST APPLICANT In his decision delivered yesterday, Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., ordered Mark Woolf Silverstone to pay the costs of the magisterial recount of the voting in the recent City Council election amounting to £199 16s. The magistrate held that Mr Silverstone, who was one of the candidates, had no reasonable grounds for believing that he would be found to be elected on the recount, and he stated that he considered it wrong that a defeated candidate should be allowed lightly to call for a recount. He accordingly ordered that Mr Silverstone’s deposit of £lO be applied towards the costs, and that the balance be paid by him. Mr Bundle’s judgment was as follows: — I find that the costs of and incidental to the recount are £199 16s 4d. I have to consider by whom these costs should be paid. An application for a recount made under section 33 is an individual application by a defeated candidate at an election, who states he has reason to believe two facts: — 1. That the public declaration by the returning officer of the number of votes received by each candidate is incorrect; and 2. That on a recount thereof he might be found to be elected. Applicant’s Position in Poll On the original declaration the number of votes that the applicant received was declared by the returning officer to be 13,391. On the recount under section 33 the number of votes received by him was found to be 13,398, i.e., an increase of seven votes. On the public declaration by the returning officer the last elected candidate polled 14,729 votes —on the recount 14,722. Thus on public declaraition he was (14,729—13,391) 1338 votes land on recount (14,722-13,398) 1324 votes behind the last elected candidate. Between him and such candidate both on declaration and recount were 10 unsuccessful candidates who polled .a higher number of votes than he did — five in each case having a majority over him exceeding 1000 votes. The position of the last declared successful and highest unsuccessful candidate was altered on recount, the position being reversed. The votes were as declared. 14,729 and 14,709 and on recount 14,720 and 14,722.

The recount showed a small alteration in votes which Mr Silverstone received, and the public declaration was thus incorrect, though in an immaterial degree. I am unable to see how Mr Silverstone could have had any possible reasonable grounds for believing that on a recount he might be found to be elected. Had an application for recount been made by Mr Connelly, who on the public declaration received the highest number of votes of the defeated candidates. the matter would have been very different. He was a- candidate who It was stated during the proceedings had been placed ahead of Mr Hudson in count on election day. This position was reversed after check had been made. Mr Silverstone was not entitled in making his application to consider the possibility that Mr Connelly or any candidate other than himself might on recount be found to be elected. His reason could be his personal position on the poll and his alone. His grounds must have been belief that by some means on recount he would receive such a tremendous increase of votes that he would jump over the 10 unsuccessful candidates ahead of him plus the successful candidate presumably the lowest. No Adequate Grounds

I cannot think that by any reasonable stretch of reason or fancy he could reasonably so believe. It is, I think, wrong that an unsuccessful candidate should be allowed to call lightly for a recount without adequate grounds for thinking he might be found to be elected. Such grounds were, I find, absent on the present application. In my opinion, it is clearly just that the whole of the costs should be paid by the applicant. The deposit £lO lodged by the applicant should be applied pro tanto in part satisfaction of such costs. I formally order, under section 35 (7), that the costs of and incidental to the recount amounting to £199 16s 4d be paid by the applicant, Mark Woolf Silverstone, to the mayor, councillors, and citizens of the city of Dunedin, less the sum of £lO deposit lodged him with application. I direct that this sum be paid by the clerk of court, Dunedin, to the said corporation. At the hearing Mr W. M. Taylor appeared for Mr Silverstone and Mr A. N. Haggitt for the returning officer. Details of the costs were as follows: Stationery, £6 15s: preliminary preparation and organisation for the recount. £lO 10s; taxi fares, cartage etc. for transporting election material from Magistrate’s Court and return. £1 2s- hire of Town Hall for two nights, £l6; wages of poll clerks engaged on the recount, £164 7s 6d; costs of advertisement of notice of recount, £1 Is lOd.