ELECTION PETITIONS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 11360, 12 April 1915, Page 5

ELECTION PETITIONS.

- - ■■»■-■ - ■ ■- BEFORE SPECIAL COURT. LEGAL ARGUMENT. [J*kr 'Paess Absooiatiox] WELLINGTON, April U. Tile Full. Court, consisting of Jsir'i lichen Stout (Chief Justice) and Jus- i ticoM -Edwards, Cooper, Chapman arm i Mocking, sat this morning to hear ar- )' I giuueut on the law points arising oufc \ ■ of tho recent election petition cases a«' Hiuvke's Bay, Taumujuiiui and. liay of ; Islands, and stated by the Election: j Courts, witn the coa<s«nt of parties, fori the opinion of the fruil Court, j Sir John Findiay stated that it had' been agreed to first take the question." of the validity of the rolls arising out: of tho Hawke's Bay and Tuuinanurui • J oases, and then the question of tli9> , ! time in which a petition must be lodgedarising: out of the Tauraarmmi and Bay of islands ca-ses. The Court .agreed to this course. Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with hint Mr .buskwood, appeared for th«;-'pet»- ! tioner (Mr H. M. Campbell), c%nd' Sir! J. G. Findluy, K.C., with him Mbj hen, for the respondent (JDr M'Nab). ■ In opening the case, Sir John Find-j lay stated that a question relating to \ the validity of the roll had' been stated:! .lor the consideration of the Court a&> follows : : ;

" Whether, if a voters name is,' without fraud or wilful ifrisconduot, placed ou the subsisting roll.m.vanelector, although he did not possetiS, the necessary residential qwdutoar- 1 , tioa, or is, without fraud or wilful' '.■ misconduct, retained on the roll, although he had sine© been plaoed on'-' the roll lost or forfeited his resident, tial qualification, the Election Court . can, under Section 196, SubsectionF, of the Legislature- Act, 1908, disallow his vote at the election."

Proceeding with the argument; Sir. John. Fiudlay contended that .the rol* was- notoonolusire, since iu the, nut ease, which mads til© roll oonolus-". ive. legislation had completely chang&cl' the law on the question, and lie quoted/ instances to show why this was done.l It was presumed that the Legislature was familiar with the decisions of the} High Court, and it. was on "his learned.. friend to shotr, why the Legislature,; 1 -knowing the dedsion in the Wakanujl case, decided in 1882, deliberately introduced a> section into the Act of 1903 which changed the whole aspedft of the. position. He proceeded to quote sec-. 'tions of the Legislature and Defence Acts to show whe was entitled and who was not entitled to be on the roll, lay-! • iug particular stress on Section 44 of the Legislature Act. and submitting inall cases that a person must be law* . fully on a toll, and if he lost his qna!i« flcation, then he cotdd-not.be on_;> roll. The legislation, for instance, I said that a Maori should' not be regis-' tered as a voter for a European eiocA ti'on, yet Maoris.were on the roll. The Court must decide whether, under such circumstances, a Maori could cast a v.tlid vote. The same position arose in connection with alien* and persons of unsound mind. Reverting to Section 44 of the Legislature Act. Sir John Findlay contended that Subsection 2 distinctly disqualified certain persons, who were absent from the district from .ym 'voting, and the Election Court follow the wording of the Act and disr f * allow any voters coming within that " subsection. No such provision" was m the Act. when the Wakanui case was heard, and it would require very special , circumstances, to justify the Court intaking a different view and allow eucft votes "now. He proposed to ask the Court to iuternret the words "illegally on the roll''"in their ordinary sense. that was. without legal tight or,con—tnirv to law. 'The mere fact that his name was on the roll gnve him no right to cast, a. valid vote, and if hfs name were illegally entered' or illegally retained on. . the roll then ho must ask the Court to act as: a revision court and disallow-any sue!) votes. Hk friend's contention ; that- if there was no "wilful misconduct " on the part of the voter the vote must hj« allowed would not hold good if.the Court held, as he thought it should, that tnere must be at the 1 basis of the rote a legal right to vote. Discussing the position of electors Ulc<rallv retained" on the roll. Sir John. Fiiidlity contended that such a. question vniidtt'nvke in the following eases: —(1) Persons put on the roll on their own application without the necessary qualification whether conscious of their dis- . qualification or not, (2) persons illegally put on the roll who have last qualification. (3) where on the formation of a. new district names of persons outside the district, have been wrongly placed on the roll under section S'2 by the registrar. As a further illustration, lie cited a ca.se. where a person put on the roll under an. application which the voter had not signed. Every voter must make application to go on the roll, and if n oappiioation were made how could such a person cast a valid vote. The roll could be conclusive only as regards those persons who have a legal right to go on that roll at that particular time. - Mr Levi, followiug, argued that there { could be no question about the right ■ of the Court to go behind the rolL | The only question was how far the Court .should act as a revision court. That question turned on the meaning : placed on the terms'" illegally." There was only one interpretation to be placed on that term, namely, without legal right. The question, therefore, whioVi nic Court had to decide wag whether the registrar placed the names'on the roll contrary to the provisions of the statute. This had special reference to the Hawke's Bay case, where a. largo number of names wore being attacked because they were alleged to have been wrongly placed on the* roll by the registrar. Mr Johnstone (for Mr Wilson), in the Taumaninui case, followed similar lines, contending that the intention of the legislature was that a clear roll shored "be provided of persons lawfully entitled to vote. The provision for » review snd the examination of clavnw to vote by the registrar was not adequate for the purposes of a clear rollTherefore, the Court had right of review. The bnsi* of the .right io cot« «a* the form of the c'.-mu wmch coo in mod Lii.i d.<*l*-™it'.ui :md wa* • a J;,m d™cnl. that it a person not V--1 l frt -me "cis on the roll .he ' u ' l;l,rl ° '," „C declaration to do , ,n, - :V )l m: 'f' ;|,';:;,re. there by fraud, ! ",'•,) .),;„;!,!' n->t 1-e to vote. ' ' ~ ;!,,, ( ~.nili!-i"ii •" Mr Johnstone s, ~,.,,'.,'.,!,.],; i'i'- t'-oiri Jidjoumed fori . !.,,,",.i',. i!l '' 'e-OIH»(] ;i| t-WO o'clock. ■ I