RANGITKEI ELECTION

Waikato Times, Volume 111, Issue 18625, 2 May 1932, Page 8

RANGITKEI ELECTION

HELD TO BE VALID. MAJORITY OF SEVEN VOTES MR HOGAN’S APPEAL FAILS. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Monday. The Election Court Judgment regarding the Rangltlke! election decided that Alexander Stuart was elected by a majority of seven valid votes. - In the petition as framed by J. T. Hogan, it was charged that respondent, by himself and his agents, had been guilty of divers corrupt practices. Particulars were ordered to be given, and were duly Hied and served. In these particulars some of the corrupt practices alleged in the petition were withV . drawn, but others were particularised In detail. At the trial all these, particular charges were, with the exception -of one, abandoned and with- : drawn. The remaining charge was that shortly before the election one, J. H. F. Pyfe, of Marlon, engine-driver, was reinstated in the railway department, as a result of respondent’s efforts or those of some other person on his behalf, to induce him to vote or refrain from voting.- It was plain after Fyfe had given evidence that the charge against respondent was without foundation in fact, and this was admitted by counsel for the petitioner, who, as soon as he saw that the charge could not be justified, very properly abandoned it. Names Illegally on Roll. ,In regard to the claims by both . parties that voters were illegally on •i the roll It was plain that the number was such that on scrutiny the result of the poll might be affected. The voting papers of all such w’ere accordingly examined, and 35 were disallowed, reducing respondent’s majority to 10. The Court adopted the principles laid down in previous cases, and beyond this general statement the only class of case calling for comment was where the dividing line between Rangitikei and the adjoining electoral district ran through the property of an elector who resided on the property. In such cases the Court held that the electoral district for which ho was. entitled to vote was determined by the situation of his residential dwelling on the property. Similarly In cases i:r where the voter was shown to be .residing in another district, though all the time engaged in work in the Rangi- ■ tikel district, the Court held that he was illegally on the Rangitikei roll. The Court agreed that three absen- - tee votes were properly rejected, one because the form of declaration was unsigned, the second because of unsimilarity in signatures on the original application and the declaration, and the third because the application was signed by applicant’s father. Marked by • Cross. v Jn regard to papers marked merely by'' crosses against the name of the' candidate the scrutiny revealed that there were 24, of which 13 were for respondent and eleven for petitioner. The Court rejected all except in cases where there w r as an additional indication showing clearly for whom the voter intended to vote. As instancing ’ the uncertainty of intent in using the cross the paper of one voter is mentioned, where a cross was placed, opposite the name of one candidate and a line drawn through the same name. Obviously the cross could not' have meant a vote for that candidate. Reference was made to the case O’Brien v. Seddon, and it was stated that the decision that crossed votes were valid made on that occasion had been for many years the method prescribed In municipal elections in New Zealand, but the municipal system had been brought into conformity with Parliamentary election practice, and the sole reason Which had induced the Court in the O’Brien v. Seddon case to hold that the votes were valid no longer existed. The scrutiny up to this point results in the reduction of respondent’s majority from 15 to 7. Early Closing of Booth. Regarding the complaint that certain voters were precluded from voting at Murimotu through the polling booths closing before seven o’clock, the Court expressed itself as satisfied that although the booth was closed at six o’clock, the deputy-returning officer was on duty onwards, and that from six o’clock onwards only one elegible person was prevented from voting. The Court had no hesitation in saying that this irregularity did not, and could not, have affected the re- * suit of the el&ctions.

Dealing with the complaint that at Marton and Marion Junction certain persons, said to have been respondent’s agents, interfered with\ voters, the Court said that there was nothing in the evidence from which to infer that their activities as checkers affected the result of the election. Concerning the petitioner’s claim that two payments made by the Reform League to F, M. Marlaw, of Taihape and A. Way, of Marton, were illegal under the Act and must be attributed to respondent as payments made by him or by the league, they could not be so imputed. As to costs, the Court thought, especially in view of the allegations of corrupt practice, which turned out to be quite unfounded, that petitioner should pay the costs, charges and expenses of respondent, as between solicitor and client.