THE SYDENHAM LICENSING ELECTION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7176, 29 May 1891, Page 3

THE SYDENHAM LICENSING ELECTION.

i ' - — ■* ! Proceedings in the Supreme i Court. j THIS DAY. ! The motion for an order declaring the election of the Sydenham Licensing Com- • mittee void came before bis Honor Mr Justice Dennieton in Banco to-day. ' The interest takeu in the case was shown by a considerable attendance of tbe public, both publicans and prohibitionists being strongly represented. Mr Pisher, with him Mr Harper and Mr Stringer, appeared in support of the motion. I Sir Robert Stout, with him Mr Caygill and Mr Widdowson, appeared on behalf of ; the Committee to oppose. j Mr Fisher said that, in the first part of I the motion, plaintiffs claimed that the : election was null and void, and asked that the defendants might be removed from the '■ Licensing Bench. Perhaps it would be 1 convenient to take this part of the motion i first. ! I It was agreed to do this.^ ' Mr Fisher then said that this part of the motion waß taken under No. 464* of the , Supreme Court rules. With regard to the affidavits affecting it, there were those of John Hare Taylor and Charles Goldsmith — | His Honor asked it there was any dispute i as to the facts. Mr Fisher said that there was not. j Sir R. Stout 6aid that there was no dispute as to the facts in the first part of the case, though there waß some in regard to those in the second part. Mr Fisher said that as there was nothing material in the two affidavits mentioned, he would ask his Honor to look at Charles Louisson's affidavits, filed on May 19, and would ask his Honor to make a note of the ' fact that the boundaries of the Borough were gazetted on Sept. 5, 1877, and those of the Sydenham Licensing district in 18S2, and that they wero coterminous. Mr Louisson also said that His Excellency the Governor had never declared which of the local bodies having jurisdiction within the Licensing District should make appointments and do all things required tor the conduct of elections under the Licensing Act ; and that no Returning Officer had been appointed under the said Act. William Carey Hill's affidavit stated that on June 21,1882, Richmond Bee .ham was gazetted Returning Officer for the Sydenham licensing district, and W. G. Walker, Clerk of the Sydenham Licensing Committee, and tha . neither of these appointments had been resigned or revoked. The minutes of the Sydenham Borough Council showed that, on Dec. 18, 1882, the Sydenham Borough Council passed a resolution to the effect that Mr C. Allison, junr., be appointed Returning Officer for the Licensing District of Sydenham under the Licensing Act. There was no appointment under seal, and the record in the minute book was the only warrant of appointment. Mr Allison made the declaration as Returning Officer in January, 1883. The plaintiffs were not aware of theße irregularities till they were pointed out to them by their solicitor after the last election. They submitted that there had been no election, either under " The Licensing Act, 1882," or "The Regulations of Local Elections Act, 1876." Section 5 of "The Licensing Act Amendment Act, 1882," provided that the local body having jurisdiction throughout any licensing district shall appoint the Returning Officer for licensing elections. It was also provided in tho Act that where more local bodies than one had jurisdiction throughout licensing districts, the Governor should decide which Bhould be the one to appoint a Returning Officer and make arrangements for licensing elections therein. The plaintiffs submitted that the Governor had not done thiß in the case of Sydenham, and that consequently any person acting as Returning Officer was doing that which he had no legal right to do. His Honor: Do you contend that the Governor might have appointed the Waimakariri River Board or the Drainage Board to appoint a Returning Officer for the Licensing election. Mr Fisher replied in the affirmative. By the Christchurch Drainage Act, 1875, the Drainage Board was authorised, under Section 50, to levy rates within the district, and therefore met the definition of a local body in the Act as to itß being a body having rating powers within the district. It also met the definition of a local body, as it was an elective body. The Lyttelton Harbour Board was also an elected body. The same thing applied to the Waimakariri River Board, which was elected, and had rating powers as well. None of the local bodies could have had jurisdiction in reference to the licensing election until appointed by the Governor. Sub-section 2 of Section 13 of the " Licensing Act, 1881," provided that the Resident Magistrate shall be Returning Officer for the licensing election. Mr Beetham had been so appointed, and the appointment by the Governor of a local body to have jurisdiction within the district was a condition necessary to deprive Mr Beetham of his office. • His Honor pointed out that the section just referred to had been repealed. He did not eee, therefore, how Mr Beetham could be said to hold office. Mr Fisher said that the Act which repealed the section provided that a local body Bhould be appointed to conduct the election, and that this had not been done. It was immaterial for his purpose, however, whether Mr Beetham was Returning Officer, or whether there was none at all. The plaintiffs contended that there had been no election nnder the " Regulation of Local Elections Act," against which they could petition under that Act, and, consequently, were entitled to petition the Court for a writ of quo warranto. He submitted that Section 57 of the Act providing that no writ of quo warranto should be issued in respect of an election under the Act did not apply, as there had been no election under the Act. The plaintiffs could not have brought their action in the Resident Magistrate's Court, as Section 50, under which such action would be brought, did not apply to the present case. If there was a void election, as they contended, all the safeguards provided by the " Regulation of Local Elections Act " would be removed. There was no local body who could appoint a Returning Officer under the Act, and consequently, all the safeguards for providing for the purity of the election would be removed. The Returning Officer would not be liable to any penalties no matter how much he disregarded the Act. Persons guilty of bribery, &c, in such a void election would not be liable to any penalties either. It would be within the range of possibility that one hundred votes might have been stuffed into the ballot-box, andnopenalty could attach thereto, because it was no election under either the Licensing Act or the Local Elections Act. Grant on Corporations, p. 204, showed that an election was void if held before a person not legally appointed to preside. The cases cited by Grant cited Regina v. White, Dodds v. Ellis, p. 613, and Rex v. Poole, cases in the time of Hardwioke, p. 24 and 27. Mr Fisher also cited Regina v. Backhouse IL, L.R.Q.B. p. 16. [Left sitting.]