RUSHWORTH UNSEATED

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 27, 29 January 1929, Page 5

RUSHWORTH UNSEATED

election declared void DAY OF ISLANDS I'KTITKIN. JUDGMENT OF COURT. Press Association —Copyright. SK A 1 ICO HE, This Day. The judgment of flic Election Court which sat to have objections lodged on behalf of (01. Hell against the return of Caipfc. H. 31.. Bushworfch for the Ba,y of Islands seat was as under: —■ After the general erection hold in November, at the official count it ■was found that Rush worth and Hell rccieivcd an equal number ol votes, 1 , § and the returning officer, in the exercise. of h,is statutory rights, - gave his casting vote in favour of Pell.

A magisterial recount was demanded 1 , andT held before Mr, J. IT. Luxford” 8.M., at, Whangaroi. At this recount the. magistrate found the official declaration at tho poll Incanreefc, and that Rush worth had received three! more votes than Bell. TTo the returning officer to make an amended phhlio declaration, declaring Bushworth elected. PETITION LODGED, In December a petition was lodged with, the returning officer, but the petitioner did not claim the seat. On behalf of Bell, the petitioner prayed that it might he determined that Ruslxworth. was not duly elected or returned, and that tho election bo declared void, upon the ground that certain votes counted a s valid were informal, and that certain votes disallowed should have been counted as valid votes for BolL

It was also allowed that there were certain irregularitios in tjio conduct of the poll. A petition was dulyserved on Hush.worth, and it ihas been duly proved at tho hearing that, all tho formalities prescribed to en-

utile the petition to 1,0 Heard bad Leen complied with. Busbwarthi bad notified the court that tic* tufl not (intend to oppose the petition, and n 0 one had appeared ta oppose it. The first allegation was that two| electors/ voted by ruling out the names of all three candidates on the (ballot paper, and then Hdrloto the word Bell above the printed name. Those two* votes wore allowed as valid votes for Bell in the official count by the returning officer, flint disallowed by the magistrate on the recount.-. NO PROOF OF IDENTITY. After inspection the two ballot ps>*piers they thought ■ that in vpoilil/jer case could he identity of the voter ha discovered from the hand writing. In O no| case the letters wore in script and in”tHe other the writing was colourless and without any distinguishing cha}ra|ctars. They therefore thought that both these* votes were wrongly rejected in the recount and should have (boon counted (Us valid votes for Bell., This would halve again made the votes recorded in favour of Bell and Bush worth cqu al jn addition. The magistrate counted! wlsi [valid votes for Bushworth three 'which) bad been rejected as informal, by Ifho returning officer.. In all three cases none of the names on the ballot paper bad been crossed out, but lines had boon drawn alongside the names of the two other candidates. No lino having boon drawn ahmgsioo Bushworth’s name, the learned magistrate, after examining these three ballot papers, thought that they each clearly indicated an intention to cast a vote fbr Bushwlortb, land so allowed them as valid. They regretted that, they could not agree with his opinion. What influenced the Court to co-mo "to this conclusion was the fact that for many years in Now Zealand a 1 the voting at municipal elections had been clone by putting a cross opposite the name of the candidate intended to bo voted for, instead o b y crossing out the names of all candidates not intended’to be. voted r. They thought that in those cases the Court went as fair as it I>"^

could, and in their opinion drawing (Linos alongside certain names could not be considered as evincing a. clear intention. They thought these thiee votes should have, been, rejected by the magistrate as informal*

NUMBER WRITTEN ON PAPER. There were also other votes which it was alleged should have been counted as valid votes for ficll and which wore not so counted.

jii one case after voting correctly for Bell, a voter wrote on the face of tho ballot paper his number on the roll. That vote was rejected by the magistrate, and they thought quite rightly, on the ground that the figurea enabled the voter to ho identified. Again, it was proved that two persons, a man and wife, got on. the roll before they had resided in the electorate three months and voted for Hush worth. These votes must bo rejected.

It was also proved; that one, Beatrice Myrtle Elliott, who was not on the roll, voted in the name of Beatrice Eloaner Elliott and that Beatrice Eleanor Elliott also voted. A. scrutiny showed one of these' was cast for Bushworth and. one for 8011, but it was impossible to define which elector voted for Bell and which for Bushworth. There existed, therefore, am ‘invalid Vote Counted 1 , as valid which may have been recorded for either candidate. CASE OF ABSENTEE VOTER.

It had. also been proved, that au absent voter’s vote had been counted as valid although not accompanied by a declaration made by the voter, as required by the regulations. Tim magistrate was quite right in disallowing this vote as invalid, but found it impossible to identity the ballot paper among the 94 absentee votes, and they could see m> way of identifying that particular voting paper. Lastly, an absent voter’s vote for 801 l was rejected because in his declaration he had spelt lus name slightly differently from, the way be had spelt it in bis application for enrolment, although it was clear from a comparison of the two signatures that both were written by the same man. They thought this vote should have been counted as a valid vote ip favour of 8011.

They had also had proof of certain .irregularities which took place dining the official count by the returning officer.

This officer did not obtain the presence of a. justice of the peace at the count, and consequently there was no certificate by a justice as to the number of ballot papers used. They found it necessary to determine the effect of this irregularity, hut it was clear that Quite apait from it there was sufficient evidence to show that Hushworth was not duly elected,, and they felt it their duty to so hold. Th e petitioner would pay Ins own costs and Mr and Mrs Herbert, bavin.r answered fully and. faithfully the questions put to them during the hearing, would he entitled, if they remiired it, to receive a certificate of indemnity.