MR LANE'S ELECTION.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXX, Issue 13093, 5 June 1913, Page 8

MR LANE'S ELECTION.

'» ■ ' THE PETITION DISMISSED. {Per Press' Association.} \i HASTINGS, last, night. ,l j An important Magisterial decision rc-i lating to the conduct of local elections; was given to-day in the petition to de-j clare void the election of Mr Elustace' Lane as representative of .the Borough; of Hastings on, the Napier Harbor jßoard^j ■. on the grounds (1)' that; Air ' Lane is.irireligible to stand, his name being on the Hastings borough electors' roll ; (2) that the returning officer", in giving the public notice required by the Local Elections and Polls Act, 1908, failed to appoint? a' day not more than " seven' da^ys (exclusive of the day of the election) before the day for the nomination of candidates. In dismissing the petition, the~<Magistrate (Mr McCarthy) "Vsaid the, day of nomination was rightly fixed, and that Mr Lane was eligible for a seat on the Board in that his name; Was' on the roll used at the 1911 election, it being the roll that should have been used at the poJl under review, the roll actually used being invalid in that it was not completed before April I—the1 — the time fixed for the t'-. . -.letioii ol" the roll under , the Municipal Corporations Act, 1203;. 'and regulation 18, which reads, "If from any cam. whatever a district ebctors' roil, is not made and completed so as to come into force at the prescribed time, • namely, the Ist April, the roll to bo .used at the then ensuing election . shall, apart from Miy extension under, 'section'' 368, be a roll in force at the pree&ling election." .Mi* McCarthy's •decision > c6ncludes c "What then is the position as to 'the election having been conducted under •an invalid roll? No allegation to that effect is contained in the petition, axtd there is no proof before' me^'tfo any divergencies, but one betiveefl' the twfo rolls. How. tlien, can I say the use ,of the invalid roll has materially affected the result of the election Mr Lane-' polled 525 votes mora than the next highest candidate',"* and it is the peti-!' tioners' object to' upset his election by mere •technicalities. The courts will not lightly upset - an election by of) irregularities ol ejecu_|_l£^officers, fori which the successful V candidate arid th_< electors were in no way responsible, and at which neither he? nor they have, in juiv sense of the w©rd,.,cpnniyed.;. In m y opinion, the petition should be dismissed, and it is dismissed accordingly, with costs against the petitioners."