A ROAD BOARD ELECTION CASE.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8553, 22 May 1895, Page 4

A ROAD BOARD ELECTIO N CASE.

The following ease was heard at the local, S.M, Court yesterday before Mr 0* O. Ket%.— , r, : [ - A petition was presented . from H^ Vaughan (candidate) and^H? VL Speed, and ' John McGregor (electors) of 'fh'ej Mangawnero Bead' BeaVfdiiWot;'; aa ;, follows!— We h«Mh, -declare we , verily believe that at the' election to the . office of the members of the' said Board,; . holden at XTpokongaro on 29Hi April, i 1895, at which David Mason, A. M. [ Georgetfci, W. D. Humphreys, Donald! , Boss, and James Brownlie were declared „ to be duly eloetei to the said offices, tha 1 . eaid election is Toid upon the" following, , ground : That the name of 33d ward' , Fitzkerbert Yangban, ©me of the peti- | I turners, waa omitted from the polling', papers, and we pray that inquiry may be| [ made into tke said election under "The, : Regulation of Local Elections Act, ; 1876," and that tha 'eaid election may bo, , declared to be void. ' r Mr Hogg appeared for tbe petitioners, . and Mr Barmcoat for tke Board. ' Mr Hogg based his case on Bub-section [ 4of Section 60 of the Xbt quoted above. He said that Mr Vangkan, one of the' petitioners, had on the day named put in an application for candidature for the, Board, that the Betuming' Officer (Mr Morton Jones) had -refosed to accept it on the ground that the name had been signed on the nomination form as Edward Fitzherbert Vaughan, and on the valuation roll appeared aa H. Vaughan. His proper name was Edward Fitzherbert vaughan, but he always signed cheques, &c.. as H. Vanghan, Mr Morton Jones, Setuning Officer, said that he mot Mr Yaughah, who aßked him if/hfaname was on the roll, and the reply was that witness did not know.; that the valuation roll #onld show. In the rate-book the person entitled to vote waa E. Mt&herbart Vaughan, but suck name wm not on the roll " By Mr Baroicoat—Did not know as a I matter of. fact «iat; B. Fiteherttirt r Yavghan and'H.'Yanelian were ode and 5 the samsTbnt fatew-^iere "we-W, t>> brbHiors: ' AtTJjpokongaroion'the day of - nominati«n there was no'6netb sMoiir who the H. or E. F. Yanghaif was. On receivine the names of those , nominated" fie immediately posted them u^ The rate; payers' rdll had not been made'upjfijr thu year, and therefore bad notbaiigto go on but the vajuatiori roll, wnioli' was given to him Ij tSe County Council. ' "* Mr Barnicpat argned that the petition » was defective, 'M the real fftouM oh A whioh the election was attacked was'nofc 1 stated. The ground stated in the '{fe^ tion was based otf, Sdb-section 4 of Section 60;ot the Act of \fIQ, wherejS it should 1 hate been on. a different gfoona tkntief Sab-section 6. He.cohtenaid tHaf oh this ground the petition shdulQ be f diamissed* as Section 51 of'ths Act provided thai the Court could not inqttfre into any allegation unless set forth inthe petition, add the real ° ground oh which 1 the election ins attacked, vijß.,Wa"e Mr rt Jones had acted erroneously in'Tejeottfpg Mr Vaughsn'a nomination, w^s not t set forth in the petition as it might 'Mavo been under' Sub-section 6. Mr Barnicbit' . also urged that apart from this dbjact^ojE ° Mr Jones, the Eeturning Officer,' nas acted 'properly in ignoring tben6mina*, , tion of Edward Fitzherbert Vaughan, as no such name appeared on the valoa- . tion roll, and Mr Jones did notand could " not know that the name Herbert Yanghan, which was on the roll, was toe same erson as Edward Fitzherbert Yanghan. Several authorities were, cited in support of theae contentions,' 'and the varieua Bections of the Act were quoted. After argument his Worship held that the petition ought to be dismissed and the election declared valid. He thought the first objection raised by Mr .Barnicoat was fatal. The ground stated in tha petition was that the name of Edward Fitzherbert Vaaghart had been omitted from the polling papers (Section Ho Sabsection 4), the fact being that no polling papsiß had been prepared, as the Kelnrning Officer had declared tho^ other five candidates elected under Section 18. The real ground on which the election r was' attacked " was not Bt&ted. c , in the petition. It mi^ht haye r .beeu 'seated nnder Sub-section 6of Section oft Section 51 prohibited the Court inquiring into any objection unless Betforth in the petition. OrTlEe'mam gl-oniid' his Worship was of opinion, that, as, the name Edward Fitzherbert" 'VAtlgbin did not appear on the roll Mr Jones was right in rejecting*]* -admination}' ;Xhe;rdU had been made oat and was open for inspection.Borne, weeks before th^ 6 elgctaoii^ and Mr Yanghan' should da ve seen ttiat; Mb true and full name was entered therein if he wished to qualify himself. Mr Jones did not know that Mr Yanghan used the name of Herbert instead' of Edward Fitzherbert, and he was justified in ignoring: the nomination as ! being made, by a person whose name did not appear on the roll. The nomination pape? was signed Edward Fitzherbert Yanghan, and there was nothing in it to [. indicate that tha candidate was the same ;. person as Herbert Variehan entered' in « the re«. PeUtion dism)^, wjth Si #; i, costs. "' '^ v '