"PURGING THE ROLL.”

Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 657, 8 June 1882, Page 3

"PURGING THE ROLL.”

This morning (before Mr Beswick, R.M.J and Messrs Bullock and Cox, (it.P.’s) another batch of objections to the roll came on for hearing. Mr Purnell appeared to prosecute, Mr Wilding appeared again on behalf of some Of those objected to. Mr Ward. Registrar, again occupied a seat at the solicitors’ table. Mr Ivess was also in Court. The first case called was that of John ©every, adjourned from last week for the production of evidence validating Devery’s claim to vote. Mr Wilding produced a bill of sale and an affidavit made by Mr Reeves, registered proprietor of the proSorty in question, setting forth that lessrs ©every and Elston had purchased certain sections from him ; had paid a portion of the purchase money, and had been then and still were entitled to be considered the owners of the property.— Mr Purnell contended, in Elston’s care, that he had forfeited all right, title, and claim to the land he alleged to have purchased, inasmuch as he had broken his contract with Mr Reeves in three vital points. He had paid one instalment (L 4 4s), hut had not paid the second or third instalments of the purchase money, and he had not paid interest. He seemed to think that because he had paid rates he was entitled to a vote. It was absurd to imagine that because Mr Elston had payed but a small portion of the purchase money that he should have a greater interest in the property than the man who held it in chief. The same objections would apply in the case of ©every. —The Bench held that the names ought to be retained, but that the cases were nevertheless fair test cases to bring. Thye would not, however, grant any costs. - Daniel Harlihy was then called.—Mr Wilding appeared on his behalf, and endeavored to show that his client was still residing in the district. —Mr Purnell called evidence to show that Hurlihy no longer resided hereabouts, and that he had, in fact, no settled place of abode.— Struck off

Thomas Campbell. Not served. Fresh summons to be issued.

John Maxwell was objected to on the grounds that he had ceased to reside in the district.—Mr Wilding appeared to answer the objection, but, failing to sustain it, Maxwell shared the fate of the other unfortunates, and was “ struck off.” John Walls, did not appear. Struck off

Patrick Doherty failed to put in an appearance. Struck off. Patrick Keenan did not answer to his name. Evidence was given that Keenan was more interested just now in gold than politics .having cleared for the new rush on* the West Coast. Struck off. Matthew Hurley did not appear. Struck off.

Dan. Dooley. Not served. No person of the name known in the district. Charles Risely and J. Cummins were added to the list of “struck offs.” Archibald Smart was called, hut had not been served owing to his being in goal. Mr 0. p . Cox was then called, and left the Bench to reply in person to the objection.—Mr Wilding expressed surprise at Mr Cox answering to his name, as the summons had been withdrawn. —Mr Cox Then explained that he had two months’ ago altered his qualification to veto, that qualification having been objected to. A fortnight ago he had been summoned to reply to the present objection, although the objectors knew perfectly well that the ground of complaint had been removed.— Mr Beswick said that he would regard the summons as being withdrawn. This concluded the roll objections, and the Court rose.