WATERWORKS LOAN UPHELD

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 18791, 28 May 1923, Page 9

WATERWORKS LOAN UPHELD

DISMISSAL OF PETITION. APPLICATION FOR RECOUNT REFUSED. The petition asking for a recount, o£ votes in connection with the carrying of the recent loan proposal of £lOO,OOO lor borough waterworks extension came before Mr Barton. S.M., on Saturday. Mr Clinkard appeared for the petitioners, and Mr Treadwell, borough solicitor, for the respondents. The signatures to the petition were as follows: C. H. Burnett, S. E. Nicholson, J. H. Bowater, J. B. Peyman, W. T. Burr J. Forbes, R. Davis, G. C. A. Smith, A.’McLean, F. C. Wilson, K. G. Malcolm, G. E. McLaughlan, L. J. R. Hedditch, and C. E. Stroud. The petition stated that the said poll was held on April 26, 1923, to borrow the sum of £lOO,OOO for the purposes of constructing, erecting, extending and enlarging the present waterworks, and that on the 3rd day of May the Returning Officer officially and finally declared the above loan proposal carried by a majority of 13 votes, the voting being 1385 votes for the proposal and 12 72 votes against; 237 informal votes being recorded.

The petitioners said: (a) In view of the fact that the Returning Officer publicly stated on the eve of the poll on the 26th day of April, 1923, that the said proposal as aforesaid had been carried by 26 votes, the voting being: For the proposal 1372, and against 1347. (b) That the Returning Officer on Wednesday, May 2, 192 3, at the Wanganui Borough Council Chambers, officially stated to the council at the Mayoral Installation that the said poll had been lost by 57 votes, the voting being as follows: For the proposal 1315 votes, and against 1372; informal 237. (c) That, as aforesaid, the Returning Officer again on May 3, 1923, finally and officially published in the Wanganui Herald that the said proposal had been carried by 13 votes, the voting being 1385 for the proposal, and 1372 against; informal 23 7 votes.

(d) It will be noted that in the last two declarations made on May 2 and May 3, the informal votes declared were equal, namely 237 votes, It will also be noted that the votes recorded against the proposal in the lest two declarations were the same, but that the votes in favour of the proposal were increased from 1315 to 1385. (e) It will also be noted that assuming the informal votes to be 237 at the first declaration on April 26, the total votes recorded were 2957. In the second declaration, on May 2, the total votes, including 237 informal, were 2924, or 33 less than the first declaration. In the third declaration on May 3 the total votes, including 237 informal, were 2994, or 70 more than the second declaration, and 37 more than the first. (f) And your petitioners also say that (a) many votes were rejected as informal which ought to / have been accepted as valid votes inasmuch as the electors clearly indicated on the voting paper that he (or she) intended to vote against the said proposal. (g) In view of the indefiniteness and unsatisfactory nature of the several declarations and in view of the large number of informal votes involved, and declared informal at the making of the several declarations, and especially in view of the very small majority of votes, 13, by which the poll was finally and officially declared carried, and further having in view the very large amount of loan money—£loo,oo'o—which is proposed to be borrowed under the said poan proposal and the consequent heavy rating imposition which such an expenditure necessarily involves the ratepayers of the Borough of Wanganui. The petitioners prayed that it may be determined that such proposal declared on May 3, 1923, was rejected and not carried, such further and other relief as in the premises may be just.

After hearing legal argument Mr Barton said that no evidence had been submitted by the petitioners other than the actual declarations made, and no infringements were alleged other than the discrepancies in the number of votes. The petition was brought under the provisions of the Local Election and Polls Act, under the section disputed elections and polls, and that a declaration that such proposal be rejected and not carried was asked for. The general prayer of the petition did not help them. He had to deal with the matter under section 50 of the Local Elections and Polis Act, wherein he had to determine whether by reason of some irregularities that materially affected the result of the election, that the poll was void. He did not see any irregularities in the claims of the petitioners. There were certain discrepancies, which were matters for comment, and which fully justified the making of the explanation which he hoped would allay any uneasiness the electors might have been occasioned. The whole trouble seemed to have arisen over the announcement of the middle declaration. This should nol have been made. He pointed out that the Act required that the strictest secrecy should be observed from the time of the provisional announcement, while the official scrutiny and recount was being made, until the result wag officially declared. Any intermediate declaration was improper, and was attended by considerable risk. Any breach of secrecy was regarded seriously by the Legislature. It was necessary that there should be a strict compliance with the provisions of the Act. So far as the application for a recount was concerned, Mr Barton said that it was beyond his jurisdiction, as the law required an application to be made within thi’ee days after the declaration of the poll. Ths petition was dismissed. The question of costs was adjourned until Tuesday.