PAHIATUA ELECTION PETITION.

Woodville Examiner, Volume V, Issue 403, 19 October 1888, Page 2

PAHIATUA ELECTION PETITION.

OUSTING THEC AN DIDATES. AGAINST EDWARD NAYLOR. At the R.M. Court yesterday morning before R. Ward Esq., R.M., the petition in connection with the Pahiatua Town Board Eleci ion was heard, particulars of of which have already been published in our columns. The first case was against Edward Naylor who was undefended, but denied the allegations of the petition that the persons signing the nomination paper were not entitled to sign, that the candidate was not capable of holding office, that persons voting for the candidate were not ent'tled to vote. Mr Tosswill appeared for the petitioners. J. D. Waller, clerk to the Pahiatua Town Board, produced the last rate roll signed in April 1888 by Mr Sturmer R.M., and said ; Naylor’s name does not appear on the roll. Neither is the name of Mr Whitcombe, who nominated Mr Naylor. (Witness then produced the rate book.) His Worship: Where is the rate roll? Witness : I am not aware of any other documents.

His Worship: The Act requires that a roll shall be kept of all ratepayers. Mr Tosswill: Then I presume the rate book must be taken ? His Worship: Yes. Witness continued: At the election I made up a list of all the names in the rate-book excepting my own. I sent up the list to the Clerk of the Court. ,Mr Tosswill said the Pahiatua Road Board had a section in the town and Mr Whitcombe voted on that section as chairman of the Board but his name was not even on the roll. The Clerk’s name had been on the roll. His Worship: I suppose Mr Whitcombe has a personal right to vote. Mr Tosswill: He has no personal right. Witness; There is no name on the rate roll for the Road Board roll, only “The Clerk.” The Chairman, of the Road Board is not on the roll. In the rate book the section is described as “ per the Chairman.” Mr Tosswill: Has there not been an erasure of the name? Witnes: Yes, there appears to have been. Mr Tosswill:. Did Mr Whitcombe vote on this qualification ? To the best of my knowledge, he did. To Mr Naylor : I cannot say when ray application was put in to be enrolled as a ratepayer, but it was before I was clerk. His name was also put in the ratebook before I took office. A. W. Sedcole said: I was formerly clerk to the Pahiatua Town Board. Mr Whitcombe’s name is not on the i - ate - roll. Neither is Mr Naylor's. Henry Sedcole, H. W. Briggs, W. Stewart, C. L. Stokes, John Morrison, Charlotte Sedcole,, Walter Best, Joseph Burrows, and William Wakeman, are all on the roll. In April I made a list from the rate-roll. Alterations were subsequently made. His Worship : I must have proof that the petitioners signed before a Justice. Mr Tosswill: I saw them sign. I can prove that. To Mr Naylor : I put your name on the rate-book. To His Worship: The property is Mrs Naylor’s, but Mr Naylor occupies the shop. To Mr Tosswill: The rate-book was signed in September. Henry Sedcole stated he saw two candidates but none of the electors sign the petition. Mr Tosswill then stated he saw T. Hughes, Sam. Groves, John Price, and W. Best, sign before Mr McCardle, J.P. _ His Worship reserved judgement till the other case should be heard AGAINST ALBERT WEST SEDCOLE. The petition against Albert West Sedcole was then heard, the grounds for voiding stated in the petition being that the persons signing the nomination papers were not entitled to do so, that Robert Lee voted for Albert West Sedcole by fraudulently impersonating another person with the privity and consent of the said Albert West Sedcole, and that persons voted for the said Albert West Sedcole, who were not entitled to vote. Mr Tosswill appeared for petitioners and Mr Gothard for defendant. J. D. Waller stated; A. W. Sedcole was nominated by George Whitcombe and Edward Naylor. Mr Gothard : To save time we shall admit that the names of Mr Whitcombe and Mr Naylor are not on the valuation roll. Albert West Sedcole stated: I was formerly clerk to the Board. The names of all the petitioners except Price are on the valuation roll. I made out the roll in April. Henry Sedcole verified-his signature to the petition and that of Wakeman and Joseph Burrows. To Mr Gothard; Mr Tosswill was with us when we signed. William Tosswill stated : The petitioners and electors signed on the 3rd October. Walter Best and Samuel Groves each signed separately, and T. Hughes and Price signed together. To Mr Tosswill: I went in with them and they signed in my presence. Mr Gothard: There are other grounds. Does my friend intend going oh with them ? His Worship; I presume he is satisfied with the grounds shown. Mr Tosswill: I subpcened another witness, but he is in Wellington. Mr Gothard: I understand what my friend asks is that an election takes place for only these two candidates. I shall ask. Your Worship to declare the whole election void, so that there may be a new election altogether. His Worship: There is a case on that point. You cannot go outside the petition. Mr Gothard: As the persons signing Mr Sedcole’s nomination paper were not legally on the roll, Mr Sedcole was not a legal candidate, and should not have been put on the list. There were great irregularities, and the election should be declared void. His Worship: I have no power to go beyond the petition. There might be ample irregularities, and I may be inclined to think there were, but I cannot void the election. 1 am asked that certain persons should be thrown out, and if Mr Tosswill can prove they should be on any of the grounds mentioned I am bound to eject them. There is no doubt the Act is defective as was mentioned in the decision already quoted. Mr Gothard: There will be no further evidence. Mr Tosswill: I ask Your Worship to look at clause 50. I think it is admitted that these elections are void, and I therefore ask Your Worship to declare the election of A. W. Sedcole void, and that Henry Sedcole, being next on the poll, be duly elected; also that the election of Edward Naylor be declared void, and that J. Burrows, being next on the poll, be declared duly elected. His Worship : I consider the petitioners have succeeded in proving the allegations in the first clause of the petition, and therefore I declare that the election of A. W. Sedcole is void, and that Henry Sedcole is duly elected; and also that the election of Edward Naylor is void, and that Joseph Burrows is duly elected. I allow counsel’s fee £2 2s in each case and costs. Mr Gothard; I ask that the costs be against the returning officer as it is his fault. Mr Tosswill: I deny that emphatically. It is not his fault, and he should have his costs.

His Worship : Do you, Mr Waller, get any allowance tor coming here ? Mr Waller: Not that I know of. His Worship: Well I allow you 10s, and 5s costa in each case.