HARBOUR BOARD ELECTION PETITION.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12458, 21 March 1905, Page 7

HARBOUR BOARD ELECTION PETITION.

ELECTION DECLARED VOID

At the Magistrate's Court this morning, Mr E. L. Stanford, S.M., delivered judgment aa follows in the petition lodged against the return of Mr Alex. Higgie as a member of- the Wanganui Harbour ' Board:—» Divested of the full and exact words givon in the petition and omitting that section which was struck out by consent, the petitioners in substance allege— (1) That the roll for the district was so irregularly compiled as not to be a real roll. (2) That an insufficient mimber of voting papers were supplied at each booth and that for want of voting papers many electors were unable to" votev (3) That too many voting jpapers were given to certain electors. X -' I have summarised the petition N after a * careful examination./jf the evidence given, and have no hesitation in saying that each and all of these allegations are sustained iv full and that as a result I must declare the election void, though it is necessary further to^particulariise which of the allegations proved render this conclusion inevitable, and why. First as regards the rolls, the Counties Act of 1886, sets out the method to be adopted in making up the roll in sections 59 to 77. I may shortly set out the result - of all these sections thus. All persons of 1 21 years shall be county electors if their i name appears on the electors' roll unless they are "defaulters," Le., have failed to pay their rates. A copy-of the rolls is to be open for inspection from April 27 to March 15, and public notice is to be given and there is provision for an to the Magistrate by any_ person who is aggrieved, all mistakes proved to havei-been made- are to be corrected, and every correction initialled; by the "Magistrate. Section 7o says "TheVelectors' roll made under the preceding sections, when signed by the Clerk, shall *c the electors' rolls." The Clerk to. the County gave the following evidence:— '% did. not advertise that the rolls were open for inspection or that defaulters' list was open. I should have advertised that they were both open so that voters could make objection. I never do, there never has bean an objection since I have been clerk." "If the present roll is invalid there has been no valid roll for three years, for the least three years the rolls have been prepared in the same way. The last rate was struck in * 4f9Q2. Every ratepayer has not paid that rate; there are still some defatilters. Names of those defaulters are on the roll

Kjv supplied' to Mr - Epdwell (the Returning 'H\ Officer) unless they have left the County. tj :ifefaulters would, therefore, be at liberty y; to vote at last election." And again Mr '■ "Barns says "I did not sign original of a ;that r O u." :-..: ■" .-.■•■■ -:, ■■■■.■■•■...... .'■;■■ ■'i -;'ilt'-was- argued that the sections of 'thei?r- (Cpunty; Act which I have noted above are. ■> directory and not, mandatory. Probably ;;:: -some are directory only and some, e.g., p .those concerning notice and defaulters' list I/are mandatory. As I do not declare this :-,\ election void on account of the imperfect "■mariner in which the rails were prepared, %--■ it not ~ necessary for. me to .decide this (: ;question. L merely note here that it is t;- difficult, to speak too strongly of the con- £'■:' temptuous disregard of the provisions of % the Statute shown by the. Clerk. .These :v are in the main essential to ?■;'proper representation,, and to disregard f .them /is to render it at least i ". unlikely that an election would' in any ; true sense be an expression of the .will of " the electors. ■■;.". '■ '■ '■]■■'■'■■'■-■•:. "' '■'■ ■ 3" The second'point is "That an insufficient :r- number of voting papers were supplied at ;;eacli booth. The evidence on this point SiVshpws.the. following facts, viz., that short- .:; Jy afterjfive; o'clock there were no voting 4;; papers left1 iii the Tayloryille' booth and pyth^Vfofe^iperip'd, which in my opinion, ;'-an': ■. hour,1-, -SyMle <{ steps) '^^f^^T^3^^ikoJi:^i-o ;■' get Tnorfe^ voting >i§jp.apep fir lilted;-; th|ier '■$?&& : groups,; ■of4elefc^ ■■ s^V^bts -in>^6; jbqoth' and 'Outside^who^desired. %.'"■' ;to yote;^ aii^whp.;-.'cpuid/'n6t f qi want: of. i;;)^iapers?sThat it \yas- gfeneraUjr' known among :;: groups that electors:' could not vote. ;^^Tiiat ■: 6n^:|fespi>di!O,^ppose^hiriT^ ;.: away without-asking for ; a"' ! voting paper becauss he; b^earii: there r>yere;. ,v no more voting papers. ■ -Iliei^circumstances f'S: of 'the;- case were Jhat^one of the" roads :'..'.->ii«ading'..to the Taylorville' booths was de--5,: rclared closad for ■, public traffic from two to '' fiye 6'clocky and. that after, fiy© a: rush of /voters -set in which rendered the supply of voting- papers insufficient to meet the ■"■; demand: This, however, was well known beforehand, and the result was an^occur- ■;'• rence rwhich the Deputy-Etaurniag Officer .might have; naturally expected. The Ec- ;.- turning; Officer is certainly blameable in } some degree,; for running matters so close.

He should have sent to each booth in the county a number of voting papers far more than sufficients supply any adventitious retirement: such as this. His deputy is still more blameable in not having fore-

>..Y seen the inevitably increased number of that would demand papers after five o'clock. The principle on which an irregularity results in voiding a. poll is , set out'by Williams, J., in the Aharoa1 [ Election Petition, 10, N.Z.L.8., "If he 'failed in showing facts negativing the ••■'.' reasonable possibility of the result having :'■ been affected, the Court might have felt

: compelled to hold-, the; election'void," and again "tli© next, question is whether we \can say upon the facts disclosed in the : present case that a majority, of the electors have been, by misconduct or error of the presiding officers, prevented from recording" their votes with effect." . It was proved in evidence that the defeated candidate, Mr Jones, was busily occupied during the afternoon of the day of election in bringing electors to ■ the poll, but that he ceased attempting to bring more electors when there were no more voting papers, as it was no use if they could not vote. Now the Returning Officer gave evidence that Mr -Higgie was elected by a majority of only 22 votes over Mr Jones, the-total numbers being 197 and 219. ..Eleven votes.must be struck put for reasons which will appear presently^ but to which candidate they were given there was no evidence. ~ ' ; : .'■■ For the reason that an insufficient number of voting papers were supplied at each booth and that for this reason many electors were unable to vote, such irregulari-;-ties having materially affected the. result of the election, I declare the election void. Thirdly., as regards th© allegation that too many voting papers were given to certain electors. The Deputy-Returning Officer, Mr J. P. Watt, says in his evidence: "There were two electors received over three votes each. They both exercised six .votes. It was alter I heard from Mr Rodwell that there were to be only three ; votes that I allowed Mr Clapham and Mr Higgie more than three votes. Mr Clapham persuaded me. It was contrary to . Mr Rodwell's instructions." . It appears Unnecessary to make any comment on this frank admission of wrong doing, though it affects the question of costs. The allegations of petitioners having been all fully proved and the election void, it only remains to deal with the •question of costs. ~'■.., In section 52 of Local Elections Act "1 may order that the expenses of and incident to the inquiry shall be born-e either

by any party, to the inquiry, or when it

declares the election or poll void on the v grouncl or partly of any negligence or misfeasance- of any Returning Officer or .other person., acting- officially at the clec- . ."'.'■ tion or poll, may order that such expenses J**'or any part thereof, shall be born by that Beturiiing Officer or other person," and in t-jub-ssction 2 of the same section, "subject to any such order the Court shall direct that the deposit accompanying any petir tion under section 45 hereof shall be returned to the person who paid the same." In pursuance of the above sections, I do hereby order:—First, that William Rodw^ll (Returning Officer) and John Paton. Watt (Deputy-Keturning Officer), do each pay onerhalf of the expenses of,

and incident to, this enquiry and that the deposit of "=£lo accompanying this petition, be returned to Mr John Jones.

Mr. Fitzherbert asked if the order as to costs was not ultra vires. He understood that the petitioner's counsel had stated that he had not summoned Mr Rodwell to attend and give evidence, and had intimated that he did not ask for costs against Mr Rodwell.

Mr Watt stated that he had pointed out at.the outset that they were not seeking for costs against Mr Rodwell, but had expressed the opinion that his Worship might find it his duty to mulct that gentleman in costs. As a matter of fact Mr Rodwell had been summoned to attend and did attend and give evidence. Mr Fitzherbert said he understood that Mr Watt distinctly disclaimed making any claim for ccets. He- asked his Worship if he had ruled that the rolls were faulty, and that any election held while they were in. their present condition would be liable to be upset, and thereby useless. His Worship said this was so, and that it would be quite useless.' having, any election, until the rolls were in order.

The question of the amoimt of costs was left to the solicitors to arrange with power to refer to his Worship if necessary.