RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 71, 25 September 1852, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

A Meeting of a full Bench of Magistrates was held at the Court-House, Dunedin, on the 21st inst:, pursuant to the Notice at the foot of the list of claimants to be enrolled as voters, for the purpose of hearing objections to such claims. Present : — Capt. Cargill, James Maeandrew, W. H. Reynolds, Dr. W. Purdie, E. Lee, W. Mantell, R. Williams, H. Jeffreys, C. H. Kettle, and A. C. Strode, R.M., Esqs. The town cases were taken first.

Mr. J. C. Carnegie, in whose name the whole of the objections were made, appeared and objected to Mr. Thomas Bain, householder, (who claimed to be registered as a voter for the town district) on the ground of his having no title or lease.

Mr. Harris appeared in support of the claim, and contended that, by the terms of the proclamation, the Bench had no right to enquire into the title of persons claiming as householders ; proof of the occupation for the requisite time, and of the sufficient value of the premises, was all that could be required.

Mr. Williams, Coroner, contended that the Bench had a right to enquire into the title of every claimant. Mr. Mantell suggested that the absence of a title rendered the property of no value to the holder; he could not therefore claim a vote.

Mr. Carnegie entered into a long discursive statement about a Mr. Ross, v ho was the superior landlord of Mr. Bain, by which he intended to show that, in consequence of some dispute between the landlord and tenant relative to a right of way, no lease had been signed, and that Mr. Bain was disqualified. Mr. Harris stated that although he contended for the piinciple that the Bench had no right to enquire into the title of householders, yet in this case he was prepared to prove that Mr. Bain was legally in possession, and could not be ejected, that his title was perfect, — in fact, the payment of rent was evidence of his title.

Mr. Carnegie said that although he had a power of attorney from Mr. Ross, yet he had never received rent.

Mr. Harris then stated certain facts as a witness, as evidence of title ; and the question being put, that the claim be sustained, it was carried — Messrs. Maeandrew, Purdie, Reynolds, Cargill, and Lee, in favour of the motion ; and Messrs. Mantell, Williams, Todd, and Strode, against it.

The next case was that of Mr. John Barr, who claimed as a householder. Mr. Carnegie objected on the ground of the claimant being a squatter.

Mr. Harris called for proof of the service of the notice of objection, whereupon Mr. Carnegie called Mr. Tudor Williams as a witness to the service of the notice. Here a question arose as to the propriety of swearing the witness. Mr. Harris did not require an oath to be administered, he would he contented with Mr. Williams' statement. Mr. Tudor Williams stated that he delivered a notice to Mr. Barr; he did not know what was in it. Mr. Harris contended that this was no evidence of the service of notice, and quoted from Woodfall in. proof. The witness was again asked by the Bench if he knew the contents of the notice. Witness thought it was something about an ejection. Mr. Carnegie whispered something to witness. Mr. Coroner Williams (aside to the witness) Don't you recollect my telling you what was in the notice ? Witness — Yes. Don't you recollect of my telling you that it was a notice of objection against his (J. Barr's) having a vote ? Mr. Carnegie to witness (aloud) — Do you not remember what was in the notice? Witness — Yes. You knew that to be a notice of objection to his having a vote ? Witness — Oh, Yes. The majority of the Bench held the proof of service sufficient. The objection that the claimant was a squatter was then gone into. Mr. Harris admitted that the claimant's tenement for which he sought to vote was on the town belt, and again contended that evidence of the occupation for the six months previous to the date of registration was all that the Court could require. They had no right to question the titles of householders ; it was therefore only necessary to prove the annual value of the property. Mr. Williams argued that squatters could not be voters ; the Court was bound to enquire - into every man's title. -Mr. Mantell could not understand how any man could be supposed to have an interest to the amount of £10 annual value if he could be summarily ejected from his holdings; there could be no value attached to such premises.

Mr. Harris contended that, although the claimant might be ejected, yet he did receive value, and was entitled to a vote until he was so ejected. During the discussion of this question — of the right of squatters to vote — by one half of the Bench, another was enquiring into the value of the property. Mr. Carnegie stated the value of the whole premises to be under £10. The question being put to the Court, they decided that the claim was not sustained, the majority consisting of Messrs. Williams, Mantell, Todd, and Strode, R.M. ; the minority, Messrs. Cargill, Macandrew, and Reynolds. The other members of the Bench did not vote, not having finished their discussion upon the merits of the case. The next case was that of William Blackie, who claimed a vote as a freeholder ; but it appeared he was only a leaseholder, and the objection was sustained. The case of Mr. David Bower was then called on. He claimed to vote as a householder, and was objected to as a squatter. Mr. Harris argued this case on the same grounds as that of Mr. John Barr. Messrs. Carnegie and Mantell repeated their former argument. Mr. Kettle considered the property of not sufficient value. The objection was sustained, part of majority stating that they disqualified the claimant because he was a squatter ; and the other part because his property was not of sufficient value.

Several cases were allowed to stand over for Mr. Carnegie to get his witness to the service of the notices of objection. We publish a list of the claims sustained and those rejected ; we therefore do not follow every case through its details, but merely notice the principle cases. Mr. John Duncan, who claimed to vote as a householder, was objected to by Mr. Carnegie on the grounds that his brother, George Duncan, qualified for the same property. Mr. Williams stated that he was decidedly tof opinion that there could not be more than lone vote for the same property. Mr. Harris quoted Western and Blackstone, and proved that the annual value of the premises was £20.

The question that Mr. Duncan's claim be admitted was then put and carried.

Mr. J. R. Johnston claimed to vote as a freeholder, and was objected to on the ground that the property was encumbered.

Mr. Carnegie stated that he understood that the property had been sold to Messrs. Maeandrew & Co., and that the claimant had not an interest of the value of £50.

Mr. Harris proved that the property was still in Mr. Johnston's hands, although it was under treaty to be sold, and that it was of more than four times the required value. The claim was allowed. Mr. W. H. Reynolds, J.P., who claimed to vote as a householder, was objected to on the ground that he was a squatter, and that two other persons voted for the same premises. Mr. Williams objected to Mr. Reynolds' vote : the premises for which this claim was made was erected upon Crown land, — the applicant was therefore a squatter, and had no title ; and further, that the building was a store, and that he could not claim a vote unless he resided on the premises, and it was well known he had not slept a single night on the premises.

Mr. Reynolds stated that the land was secured to the firm of Maeandrew and Co. by lease, under which they paid a ground rental of £10 per annum.

Mr. Williams desired the production of the lease.

Mr. Reynolds declined to produce the lease ; he would give evidence that such a lease existed, and that the stated rental was paid. Mr. Williams repeated, that unless a title was shown to the land, the claimant had no right to vote. Who had let Maeandrew and Co. the land?

Dr. Purdie remarked that he had been a voter at home for many years, but that he never heard such inquisitorial objections beingrnade to voters.

Mr. Reynolds ridiculed the idea that because a title to the land was not produced objections could be raised to tenn ants' votes. He referred to the case of the Lemon Estate at home : the title to the estate had been for years disputed : would any one say that the tenants on that estate were disqualified from voting. Mr. Harris again argued that the Court could not enquire into titles of claimants, and the Court would involve itself in endless confusion if it attempted to inquire into the landlords' titles ; the tenant could not question his landlord, and it was impossible for him to prove it; the only question was the value of the premises, and as there were thiee claims for the property it required to be of the value of £30 per annum, of which there was no doubt, as it was the largest store in the town ; and again read from the before-mentioned remarks referring to joint tenants.

On the motion being put, that the claim be allowed, it was carried.

( To he concluded next week.)