SYKES OR STAPLES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8679, 20 July 1906, Page 3

SYKES OR STAPLES.

* THE TRAMWAY BOARD ELECTION INQUIRY. The miscalculation of the retnrningofficer at the Tramway Board election, which resulted in the announcement that Mr D. Sykes had been eleoted for the Riccarton-Spreydon-Halswcll eubdisfcrict, and eventually that Mr S. A. Staples had been elected instead of Mr Syk'es, was the subject of an inquiry before Mr H. W. Bishop, 5.M.,._ thw morning, Mr Sykes having petitioned in accordance with the Local Elections Act, that he, and not Mr Staples, should be declared eleoted. Mr Hall appeared for the petitioner, Mr Izard for the returning-officer, Mr G. W. Hulme, and Mr Staples appeared for hinwbelf. ■-«,«. t i_ i Mr Bishop said that Mr Staples had not complied with Section 47- of the Act, and could not be heard. Mr Staples observed that ha had not noticed the section. Mr Bishop: You must see these things. The object of that section is to give the Court jurisdiction to award costs, and to make you a party to the proceedings. You might stand aloot entirely, and say you will not submit to the jurisdiction of the Court. .Now that the inquiry is commenced, I am bound by the Act, and cannot hear i you. Mr Hall said he would waive any right to insist upon the Magistrate is j decision. • Some doubt was expressed as to whether Mr Izard could appear for the returning-officer, but Mr Bishop decided that he ooukl. The petitioners were David Sykes, James Garthorn Rule, John Thomas Rogers, James Henry Hellewell, Joseph Gott and Charles Ray. The petitioners said that the return made by the officer was not in accordance with the number of votes recorded for each ©f the candidates as shown in the returns of th© deputy returning-officer for the booth at the Railway Workshops Library, Addington, as sent in on June 27, as follows:—T. Clarkson 8, B. P. Manhire 10, S. A. Staples 11, and David Sykes 75. Th© petitioners also urged that the returning-officer on June 28, in excess of tho powers conferred upon him by the Act, accepted from th© deputy officer the amended or altered return, and declared the result of the election 1 in accordance with tho amended return. The petitioners aleo said that the voting-papers were improperly rejected by the deputy returning^officers as informal, inasmuch as, although they vrere not marked in the manner provided by the Local Elections Act, yet they clearly indicated that the voters using them clearly intended to vote for D. Sykes. Mr Hall said the grounds for the petition were the acceptance by the re» turning-officer of an amended return from the deputy returning-officer after the close of the poll. For the purpose of the inquiry it would be. necessary to a3k that the voting-papers should be produced and opened. Mr Bishop said he thought that order should be applied for at a later stage, when Mr Hall had called evidence to show the soundness of his claim. Mr Hall said that was so. He wished to show that the returning-officer had no power to go through the votes himself. He received the voting-papers in sealed packets from his deputies, who were responsible for the election, and he had no right to accept an amended return. As a matter of fact, Mr Staples should be the petitioner, and not Mr Sykes. Another ground of tho petitioner was tho number of informal votes that had been recorded at the Spreydon booth, Mr Sykes's stronghold. The petitioner had been informed that votes had not been recorded in the proper mariner. In some cases the Voters had crossed out th© names of the candidates and had placed a cross against the candidate they had intend- \ ed to vote for. The petitioner also j claimed that by ordering a recount no- ! body could be prejudiced or injuriously > affected. Mr Hall proceeded to call evidence. ; George William Hulme, returningofficer of the election, said that the returns of the- election were sealed up in th© Magistrate's Court. Mr Bishop ordered th© returns to be produced. Continuing, witness said that on the day after the poll he had received the amended return, but the original return and the voting-paper* had come in on the night before. At this stage the returns were produced toriginal and amended) for the booths in question — Men's- Room, Lincoln Road, and Addington Workshop's Library. Witness, in reply to Mr Hulme, said | that the official return, published in the i newspapers, giving Mr Staples a majority, was based on the amended return. In reply to Mr Izard, witness said that on the day after the election Mr Staples had come to him and stated that he was sure that the return for the Addington Workshops was incor- ] rect. Inquiries were made of the Deputy Returning-officer, Mr A. DonaM- ( son, who said that he had made a mis^take. He (witness) had advised Donaldson to apply to him for . permission to amend the return. This was done, and both candidates were notified. No official announcement had been made on the original return. To Mr Hall : He had no roll for the district. The rolls used at tho poll were sealod^witli tho voting papers. Mr Hall said that the ground for his question was that many voters had | been, refused permission to vote, ali though they had ascertained that their names were on the roll. Mr Staples saia that the reason r/rob- " ably, was that electors^ were on tho rolh> of more than one district. Witness, continuing, said that there was absolutely no method of detecting plural voting. l Wallace Dalley, deputy returningofficer for tho Spreydon Baptist School booth, said that there had been six informal votes out of 256. He could not remember why the votes had been dieallowed. J. W. Neale, residing at Hillmortan, said he had attempted to rote by scratching out the names he did not wish to vote for, but had then noticed that he should put a cross against hio candidate. George Novis said that he had attempted to vote by putting a cross against on« candidate, but had.' found that he had put a cross against the wrong man. He therefore crossed it out and put another. Daniel M'Nicol ©aid he went -to see his name on the roll, and found it marked o^ut. He never received any intimation that his name would be struck off the roll, and lie never had any intimation that it was to be struck off. This closed the case for the petition. Mr Izard said he would call the officer and clerk at Addington to show what the numbers really were. His Worship would know that an election, must not be upset unless material injury could be shown to have been done. A. Donaldson stated that he acted as polling; officer at the Addington Workshop siding. Staples had 7o votes and Syicee 11 votes. Th© error ar«e© by his placing the wrong numbers opposite the n-ames. He attributed this to the bad light at 7.30 p.m., and to both names starting with S. He returned Sykes as having 75 votes. When they were half-wav through he said to his clerk : '{ Oh, this is a bird for Staples."

He was rung up by the returningofficer. who asked him to come a-nd see him, on having been told that Staples had the majority. He was quite sure of his statements. The two names were together on the paper. To Mr Hall: The names were set down alphabetically. His clerk signed th© return, aa he" did. He had no informal votes. Robert M'Laren, poll clerk, gave corroborative evidence. He took 'the return from Donaldson, and signed it without reading it. _ His Worship eaid he understood Mr Hall did not question the oorrectneas of the actual returns, but held that the returning officer's figures must stand. He wished a recount of the Spreydon votes to enable him to see if the informal votes were properly so recorded. Mr Hail said the petitioners asked for a recount of everything. His Worship said- that he quite considered that the recount was justifiable, on various authorities he referred to. Mr laard said that the returningI officer did not object to a recount. His Worship : No one will be prejudiced. Mr Hall quoted authorities in. support of hie case. He contended that when the returning-officer had finished hie work, and. sent in his returns, he was dead, and could not be resuscitated. His Worship: Except to correct any obvious mistakes. Mr Izard said that surely before the publio declaration of the poll "the re-turning-officerß could correct any mistakes they had made. Even if the votes were sealed up, their returns were n-ot. The Act did not even stipulate that their returns must be made in writing; deputies simply must acquaint the returning-officer as soon as possible of the result. If that officer had any doubts, he could ask, and have his doubts cleared up. His Worship said that would open the door to fraud. Suppose a corrupt returning-officer (almost a reduetio ad absurdum) were approached by a candidate, he could alter the figures in that candidate's favour after the returns had been sent in. Mr Izard said the answer to < that would be such an inquiry as this, if theTe were any suspicion. His Worship said he was inclined, ia all cases of this sort, to order a recount, because it raised a presumption of doobt. If deputy returning-officers would not take the trouble to execute thei,r duties with proper care, they could not legally be trusted. It seem-' ed to him a very trivial matter to discharge! their duties properly. Mr Isard. pointed out that a Court should not interfere with a poll <m account of a mere blunder, unless it was shown to have materially altered the result. Mr Bishop said that in the first instance he would order a recount, and would go into the matter with Mr Hufane. It was not necessary for him to announce at once the result of the recount, because he would have to coneider the point raked by Mr Hall. He would give his decision on Thursday morning. In reply to Mr Staples he stated that only he and Mr Hulme would con- • duct the recount. ]