ELECTORAL ROLL CASES.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 652, 2 June 1882, Page 2

ELECTORAL ROLL CASES.

This morning, before Mr Joseph Beswick, R. M., and Mr 0. P. Cox, J. P., a number of persons were called upon to show cause why their names should not bo struck of the roll for the district of Wakanui.

Mr Garrick, of Garrick and Cowlishaw, Christchurch, appeared to prosecute, and with him Mr Purnell. Mr Wilding appeared on behalf of some of those summoned. Mr Ward, Registrar for the district of Wakanui, was also seated at the solicitor’s table.

Geo. Geld was objected to on the ground that he had left the district. Mr Wilding : I am not appearing in this particular case. Mr Garrick : Perhaps my learned friend will kindly wait until he does appear for someone. Mr Ward, Registrar, having been examined, the name was struck off. Nicholas Grey was then called to prove his claim, and did not appear. Service of summons having been proved, his name was struck off.

Jeremiah Scanlan was then called. He did not appear. Mr Wilding said be appeared in this case, and would ask that it might be shown that notice of objection had been served on Scanlan in accordance with the Act. This must be proved before the Court could entertain the case. Mr Garrick said that he must differ from his learned friend. Section 19 of

the Act gave the Magistrate power to strike the name of any person failing to appear off the roll. Mr Wilding: The person objected to does appear. He can appear either personally or by counsel. He appears by counsel. The Bench decided that the proof of claim rested with the summoned. Mr Garrick said that the person summoned was summoned to prove that he was duly qualified to retain his name on the roll. Ho submitted that the person summoned should go into the witness box and substantiate his claim. Mr Wilding maintained that before the Court could take cognisance of the objections, the Registrar must prove (hat he was the Registrar. The Court had no knowledge that any such a district as that of Wakahui existed. These formalities must be observed. Mr Garrick quite admitted the formalities contended for by his learned friend, but submitted that the onus of the proof lay with the person objected to. If he appeared he should go into the box , and prove his claim. Mr Wilding said that the practice of the English Registration Courts was that the service of the notice of objection must be proved, whether the person objected to appeared or not. The Bench ruled that the onus of proof lay with the summoned. Mr Wilding characterised the objection raised as a “ random haphazard one.” He was instructed that Scanlan was a good bona fide voter, and on these grounds he would ask for an adjournment of this case for a week. Mr Garrick objected to the adjournment asked for. He did not object to his learned friend’s remarks. All was fair in love, war, and, he supposed, politics. But there would be no time for a further adjournment. The nominations were to be made on the 10th. Mr Garrick then put Mr Ward into the box to show that on the old register Jeremiah Scanlan was entered as the owner of Town Sections 33 and 34, Winslow. He (Mr Garrick) then put in a certificate of title showing that Scanlan no longer held the property or was entitled to vote. Mr Wilding said that even then he was not satisfied. A man might purchase land and not obtain a title for two or three years. The change of ownership might not interfere with Scanlan’s qualifying period. Mr Cox proved the posting of the notice to Scanlan, and produced the Post Office receipt for the letter. Mr Beswick ruled that the receipt produced was sufficient proof of service. Mr Wilding asked for the distinct ruling of the Bench on the point, as it was one of the utmost importance. The receipt produced was of no value al all, and should not be received in evidence. Mr Garrick submitted that the objections raised by Mr Wilding were entirely groundless. It was reducing the argument to an absurdity. Everything that could have been done to prove the posting of the letter had been done—short of producing the legs of the clerk who conveyed it to the Post Office, and the hands of the same individual who put the letter into the letter-box. Mr Wilding asked that the clerk who posted the letter should be produced. His Worship said he was quite satisfied. Mr Wilding said that his Worship might be satisfied, but that he was not. There was not the slightest evidence to show that the notice had been served on Scanlan. Mr Garrick : And it rests with you to show that it was. His Worship struck Soanlan’s name off the Roll. [Mr Cox here again took his seat on the B ;nch.] Augustus G. Earle, Spenser Stevens, Charles Shepherd, and John O’Gorman were then called, but failed to appear. John O’Gorman was called.

Mr Wilding, appearing for O’Gorman, objected to the summons on the ground that it simply stated that he was “ out of the district.” The grounds of objection must be stated on the summons, and, if true, would be sufficient to disqualify the person objected to. That had not been done in this case.

Mr Garrick said the summons was perfectly good. “ Out of the district” meant out of the electoral district of Wakanui. The Bench held the summons to be good. Mr Wilding was then to show the Court sufficient reason why the person obiected to should not be struck off the roll.

Mr Wilding pointed out the hardship that would result to a man whose name might be struck off when he was out of the district, and who would be thus done out of his vote by what was (he did not use the expression in connection with any official)' a mere piece of jugglery. Mr Garrick thought that if there was any “ thimblerigging ”or “ jugglery ” in the case it might fairly be attributed to the other side.

The name was struck off. Stephen Giles was next called, and turned up personally. Mr Garrick said that this was the wrong person. This was Stephen Giles, farmer, whereas Stephen Giles, blacksmith, was the man wanted. Constable Neil deposed that he was instructed to serve “Stephen Giles,” of Wakanui, with the summons, and he served it upon the only Stephen Giles he could find.

Mr Wilding asked for Giles’ expenses, as he had been wrongly served.

The Court allowed him 10a.

John Kerr failed to appear when called. Struck off. Francis Cafferty also failed to appear, as did D, McKendy, Pat Marner, and Pat Casey. Struck off. Mr Wilding was instructed to say that Casey would appear, and would ask that his name might be called again. Thos. Pheelan was objected to on the ground that he was “ not in the district.” Mr Quigley proved that Pheelan was living within the Wakanui district. Pheelan was witness’ man. Witness paid his men 25s a week all round, wet and fine, and found them. Witness was a contractor, and his men had to shift about to suit his work. Mr Garrick contended that “ actual bodily presence” in an electoral district for the time specified in the Act was absolutely necessary to entitle a person to a vote. Leaving the district for a time would destroy such a person’s title to vote. After re-examining Quigley, the Bench held that Pheelan had resided in the district, and they did not feel justified, under the circumstances, in striking his name off the roll.

Thomas Colwell, it was shown, had not been residing in the district of Wakanui for the last three years, and his name was struck off.

Robert Elston was objected to on the ground that he was not the owner of the property for which he claimed to have his name retained on the roll.

R. Elston got into the box, and deposed that he was the owner of the property specified. Cross-examined by Mr Garrick, he said that he had purchased the property, but the deeds wore not yet in his possession. Ho had paid a portion of the purchase money, and he was held responsible for the balance. He had paid rates on the property. In answer to his Worship, Mr Elston said his name appeared on the rate roll as the owner.

Mr Wilding contended that directly the contract was signed Mr Elston became the practical owner of the property in equity. Mr Garrick submitted that William Reeves was the registered owner of the property, and that therefore Elston was not entitled to have his name detained on the roll. The mere fact of a small sum

having been paid on account of hia property went for nothing. After some further evidence, the case was adjourned until Thursday next, hr the production of the conditions of sale. John Bradly was called. Mr Garrick said the case was withdrawn.

D. McMillan was then called, and being placed in the box by Mr Wilding, deposed that he was the owner of the property, sections 404 and 405, Tinwald. He had paid for the property, and got his conveyance.

Mr Garrick had nothing to say, such being the case. Mr Wilding asked for McMillan’s expenses. He had been wrongly brought to the Court, as he was perfectly entitled to vote. He had been there before oh the last Court day. It was a great hardship. Mr Garrick said that if McMillan had suffered any hardship, it had been his own fault. He could have gone to the Registrar and shown his title, and so avoided being called. He resided in Ashburton. The Bench refused to grant the expenses asked for. McMillan could easily have gone to the Registrar. ~ Patrick Marney, William Risely, and Charles Risely failed to appear. Struck off. Gamming was called, and the.'case was adjourned on the application of Mr Wilding. J. Blackham and James Scarlett were called, and failed to appear. Hugh Bryne also did not answer to his name. Andrew Marney and James Hitchins were called, with the same result. Samuel Christie was then called, and was objected to on the ground that he had left the district. Put into the box by Mr Wilding, Christie said that-he had left the district two months ago. _ Had previously resided for four yearsJn the Wakanui district.

Cross-examined by Mr Gamck, Christie said that he had now no fixed place of abode. He had merely used his hut in the Wakanui district from time to time. The name was struck out, Hepburn a witness subpoenaed by the prosecution being allowed expenses. Henry Funge was called to answer the objection that he was not the owner of the property claimed for. "■ Mr Wilding said he appeared for Mr Funge, and produced the deeds of the property owned by him. After a good deal of discussion .be tween Bench and bar, the Bench decided to allow Fur.ge’s name to remain on the rolL John Devery was then called, and his case adjourned until Thursday. Pat. Casey was then called _ for the second time, but again failed to appear. It appeared that “Patrick Casey” was twice entered on the roll.

Mr Garrick was prepared to show that the two Patrick Casey’s mentioned were one and the same person. Mr J. Ward, the Registrar, then deposed that he believed the two Casey’s on the roll were identical.

G. W. Leadley, called by Mr Garrick, deposed that he knew one Pat. Casey, formerly of Wakanui and now Of Southland. This was the only Pat. : Casey he knew to have resided in the district. The Bench struck out the Patrick Casey, numbered 1,500 on the roll, leaving on it the other “ Patrick Casey,” number 1040.

The Court then adjourned to Thursday.