IMPORTANT ELECTION INQUIRY.

Waipawa Mail, Volume VII, Issue 713, 5 December 1884, Page 2

IMPORTANT ELECTION INQUIRY.

Captain Breech sat nt the Resident Magi#* trate’s Court, Waipawa. to inquire into « petition lodged by Dr Mirbach, relative to the election of a member of the County Council for the Ruataniwhn Riding. Mr Loughnau appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Guy and with him Mr Carlisle of Napier for the respondent—Mr Rosa.

Mr Loughoan read the allegations of the petitioner that the nomination waa not received within due time, or at the “ place ” mentioned in the notice of election ; and that the persons who nominated Mr Rosa were -not electors under the Act, not having th»*n paid their ratea. Tbe respondents admitted that the rate* were not paid at the time of nomination, hut were paid before the day of poll ; also that J. M. Newman was duly appointed Returning-Officer; and the notice in the Mail.

Dr Mirbach’s evidence went to show that ou 4th November he took his own nomi-nation-paper to Onga Onga, and delivered it to the Returning-Officer about 11.30 a.m. That lie waited a considerable time, until by bis own watch and the school clock it was considerably after 12 o’clock. That at about 30 minutes past 12 Mr Koaa arrived, and went to the hotel with some other persons, and the Returning-Officer went to them and received Mr Rosa's nomination at the hotel. Going into tha booth a few minutes later, he 6iw Newman in the act of stepping down from altering the* olock. He asked to see the nomination-paper, when he saw it was marked ns received at 12.40. By Ids own watch, which was a good time-keepor, it was then 12.25.

Mr J. M. Newman’s evidence went to show that he received Dr Mirbach’s paper at IJ. 30 by a watch which he got from Mr Chicken, purposely eet to exact time. The School clock was wrong, and he did not notice it ; after an indefinite period he saw from the window Mr Ross, arrive, and went over to him at the hotel, returning in a couple of minutes signed it, aod put up the notice outside before 12 noon. He put the clock back aa it was half aa hour fast before receiving Ross's paper. He committed a clerical error and marked the paper as received at 12.40, which ha made 11.40, but received the nominatioa at 11. 50. Next morning he made a copy and gave it to Mr Johnson, and ho altered the time in both that morning. The Court enquired if he considered it his duty to go out of the booth to receive nominations. Messrs J. A. Grant and T. Harwood gave immaterial evidence, after which Mr Carlile submitted that no case was made out and the appellant should be nonsuited, as there was no positive evidence that lb a nomination was late. Mr Loughnan pointed oat that the statements of the Returning Officer as to endorsing the paper and afterwards altering it, rendered his evidence unreliable. Mr Guy said he was clearly muddled. The Bench thought there was sufficient evidence to call on tho respondent for aa answer.

Col. Herrick was then called, and da-' posed that he arrived at Onga Onga at 11.30, after Dr Mirbach’s paper was lodged y that Mr Ross arrived about 15 mioatealater, when they filled up his nomination paper, which was given to the Betorning Officer in ample time. He waa watching carefully for Ross's arrival, intending if he was late to be nominated himself. Ha had compared his watch at the telegraph office, both before and since tbe day. Mr Loughnan admitted that Mr Rosa's nomination was in time, but there was still tho point as to the nomination taking place out of the booth. Mr Carlile considered it did not matter, and for any practical purpose it waa the *\ J same thing. That it was of no oonae / quence who carried the paper into tha booth if it was there in time. The Bench thought “ the pise*-** aßn dad to in the Act waa the Schoolhotiae.

Mr Ross deposed that he arrived at Onga Onga Hotel at 11.45, when his nomination was filled up and he went over to deliver it and met Newman on the way, who took it out of his hand and returned to the booth. A few minutes later, witness went over to compare the time and found It was within time.

The Bench, in reply to Mr Carlile, said it was not a point to vitiate the election. Mr Carlile addressed himself to the point as to the sufficiency of the nomination. He held that any person whose name was on the roll had a right to nominate. The Counties Act Amendment Act” said all rates must be paid, therefore, while he might nominate he might not he entitled to vote. It was an attempt of the other side to introduce a new disqualification not contemplated by the Act. Mr Loughnan pointed out that “The Counties Act, 1876,” defined an elector as one qualified to vote; and by the 40th section, the qualification was that he should be on the roll. “ The Counties Act Amendment Act, 1883,” section 10, added another qualification, viz : that of having paid his rates. “The Regulation of Local Elections Act, 1876,” defined an elector as a person entitled under the laws for the time being in force to vote. The qualification therefore required in such an elector was that he should be on the roll and have paid his rates. The schedule, showing the form of the nomination, specified “twoqualified electors further, that section 42 inflicted a penalty on any person signing a nomination-paper who was not entitled to vote. He therefore contended that the two electors mentioned in section 11 were to be persons who possessed all the qualifications necessary to vote, namely, being on the roll and having paid their rates. The Court reserved its decision till December 17th.