MOTUEKA ELECTION INQUIRY.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3301, 13 September 1871, Page 2

MOTUEKA ELECTION INQUIRY.

The Committee met yesterday at half-past ton o'clock. The Clerk read the minutes of the previous sitting of the committee. The minutes stated that the committee had agreed that in the cases of personation sufficient had been made out to call upon Mr Travers to bring rebutting evidence. Mr Fitzherbert thought the decision of the committee was muoh stronger than what was represented by the minutes. He ija^ about to proceed to describe what he undera stood to bo the deoiaion of the committee when he suggested that the matter should bo discussed among themselves. Parties to the ease and strangers withdrew, and the committee were ia consultation for some lime. Mr Travers, when the committee-room waa re-opened, said ho had some observations to make upon the case of James Hagen, but he did not propose to call any evidence in con* neotion with the case. He wished, however, to call evidence as to the vote of Henry Tomlinson, and asked the committee to grant aa adjournment to enable him to do so. He purposed offering evidence to this effect — that in 1867 Henry Tomlinson and his three brothers all preferred claims to vote in respeot of

freehold property then in their possession; tho Henry Tomlinson who was examined claiming to vote in respect of a freehold section in Waimia West, containing 180 acres and numbered 10. He proposed to prove that his claim, in common with the claims of his three brothers, had been prepared by Winfiold Hinging, then acting as a schoolmaster at Waimea South, and to show that the claim was prepared in due form, and sub- I mitted in due form to the registration officor. He could show now by tho signed oopy of the revised roll for the year 1867, that the nameß of the three brothers, George, Joseph, and Charles Tomlineon were inserted by the Registration Officer, and allowed by the Revising Officer. He was informed that the reason for the name of Henry Tomlinson not being inserted in the list of claimants was that the Revising Officer was under the belief that he was tho came person who was already on the electoral roll as Henry Tomlinson, not knowing that there were two distinct persons bearing the name, and he was under tho impression that he was merely claiming in respect to an additional qualification. Ho would show that that was the reason for the claim being omitted, and he would show, moreover, that the Henry Tomlhison who appeared on the roll as a householder had left the district many years ago, and had never since possessed the*q,ualification in respect to which he was now on the roll. If he proved these facts — if he proved that although the qualification oppoaf-ieHbe name of Henry Tomlinson was not that in reßpecfc to which he would be ontitled to vote — he submitted that that would sufficiently identify him as the Henry Tomlinson who appeared before the committee on the previous day. Therefore, although the qualification was described, the identity of the individual would bo established, and his vote could not be questioned on the ground that lie -personated a voter. If allowed to bring evidence of this, it would bo for tho committee to decide whether it amounted to a rebuttal of a prima facie case in the case of Henry Tominson. He had prepured subpoenas, and if these were despatched by tho Phcabe, he would probably be able to bring forward the evidence within a week. As to tho case of James Hagen, he was not prepared to adduce evidence, but he was prepared to contend that it did not come within the allegations of the petition. The Chairman said the committee considered that case bad been made out. Mr Gillies protested against the statement of the Chairman. Mr Travers understood that the committee considered the case made out, unless it wore absolutely robutted. He underelood that was their resolution, with the reservation that they would hear counsel on tho point. After hearing counsel, there might be matters which might present themselves in a light different from that in which they were now presented. In connection with the case of Henry Tomli6on, ho applied for an adjournment till Monday. Mr Allan complained that a point had been raised without any notice being given, and it was but fair, when a petition clearly disclosed the grounds on which it was intended to proceed, to give notice if these grounds were to be disputed. On bis part everything had been done by the list of witnesses being handed in on the first day, and he must certainly oppose the adjournment now applied for. Mr Pearoe : Will not Mr Allan accept the allegation of Mr Travers as proved ? Mr Allan: I say that the allegation, if proved, would be no answer here. Mr Pearce : Are you prepared to admit the allegation that this man was tho man entitled to vote, but that his name wob omitted ? Mr Bunny : That is to say, would a person having a qualification, but not on the roll, have a right to vote ? Mr Allan : I am not prepared to admit that. Mr Travers : We say that the Revising Officer intended this Honry Tomlineon to be on the roll, but was under the impression that they were dealing with the same individual. It is not a case of personation. He represented himself only, believing ho was on the roll. He could establish his identity, but his qualification was v misdesoription. Mr Allan : That is not so. Ho admits that there is a Henry Tomlinson who answered to that qualification, and there is no doubt that that Henry Tomlinson might have come and voted upon that qualification. Mr Fitzherbert suggested that tho counsel for the sitting member should state any other point that he might have to urge. Mr Travers said the only other point, and one of his reasons for asking the adjournment, was the question as to the vote of Stephen Staines. He did not tender itasevidence, but he read a declaration by Javneß Robson, of Moutere, Deputy Returning Officer, to the effect that one Stephen Staines presented himself at the Lower Moutere, and requested to be allowed to vote, and after the hour of four j o'clock, his vote was then and there accepted by him (Robßon.) Mr Travers also stated that, in the case of Hagen, ho had a declaration from the Returning Officer, in whioh he distinctly stated thut he put the question to Hagen, "Are you the person on the electoral roll ?" and that Hagon answered, "Yes." Mr Allan : That only makes the case stronger against Hagen. The committee again consulted in private. The Chairman, on the admission of parties, said that, before deciding on the question of adjournment, the committee was desirous of hearing counsel on the queation as to whether a rote taken after four o'clock was valid or not valid. Mr Travers could only refer to tho thirty- | 6ixth section of the act, according to which, unless legally adjourned, the poll must finally closo at four o'clock, and, assuming the statement of the Returning Officer to be in this case correct, the application to vote was not made until after four o'clock. Mr Allan submitted that the vote had been properly received. He had no affidavit on tho matter, but he understood that the parties were present in the polling-place before four o'clock, and he contended that, if the poll were not finally closed, a voter had a right to vote. It was for the Returning Officer to close the poll, and if it were not finally closed, and a vote was received, the vote could not be disputed. Mr Gilliea : If the poll were kept open till Bix o'clock would the vote bo good ? Mr Allan contended that tho Returning Officor bad not declared the poll finally closed, and did not refuse to receive the vote ; and that, therefore, the vote was valid. The committee again consulted, and, after a consultation of some length, it was intimated that they had not arrived at any decision, except to grant an adjournment. Tho committee was then, subject to the leave of the House, adjourned until Monday, the 18th inst.