RANCITATA ROAD BOARD.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1851, 26 May 1888, Page 2

RANCITATA ROAD BOARD.

» ELECTION PETITION. f On resuming a lot)g argument arose aa r to the production of the roll used for the * election. Mr Parnell had previously raised the point, that it would be neceaBBry for Mr Stringer to prodnoe fhat roll to show that certain of his witnesses had ' any standing In the oase, Tbe roll u*ed X at the election vras tho only one made ont I from the valuation list, end when the election was concluded tho Returning Officer handed it over to the custody of the Olerk of the Ooarfc. Mr Stringer 1 naked the Oonrt to make an order for the prodaotion of the roll, but the application ; was not acceded to, the Court holding that it would be an undue Btrninlng of the law to make the order, The petitioners should have properly prepared their case before oomlng into Oonrt. Mr Stringer then called, Charles J Harper, Chairman of the Rangitata Road Board, and who also aoted as Olerk, who said that he made up a ratepayers' list for use at the eleotion. It was compiled from the valuation roll, and he handed It to the Returning Officer, Mr Simpson. Had not received it baok. beyond what he had learned that day he did not know what had become of it. la reply to the Court, the witness said that he had received no notice to produce the valuation roll from which he had made out that for the election. The valuation roll had now been posted to the Auditor. In reply to Mr Parnell, witness said that If he had been subj osiaed to produce the roll before Wednesday last he could have taken ateps to have ratained It for the case. W.Simpson said that be preserved no oopy of the Hat he got from Mr Harper. He Bent It to the Court. Had tha ratebook now. It waß at his house at Ash-* burton, and about a quarter of a mile awfty, He got the rate book one day last week, Mr Strbger considered the conduct of the Returning Officer was most extraordinary. He had been subpoenaed to produce all papers and documents. la reply to the Oourt, the witness said that he did not know that the rate-book would be required. Mr Purnell would object to the ratebook even if produoed. The Court said there was only one way of properly proving the matter. Mr Strlngor ooraplahied that tho Oourt having refused to allow him the moans of leading primary evidence, now prevented him bringing forward secondary evidence. His Worship had better refuse to hear tha obbb, when he (Mr Strings) could take steps to obtain a mandamus to have ihu caso hoard, The Court said that Mr Stringer could : njon his ca9 or go on as he thought a.,, _ . >

Mr Stringer continued Ms ex&minattiik of Mr Simpson. Mr Purnell objected to a question as to cyhethsr Mr Ooakerio waa a ratepayer The Court sustained the cbjeotlon, After a good deal of disoaeßlon Mr Stringer called F. Mainwarin>r, clerk to- Oaunty Oonnoll, v/bo produced valuation roll of Rangltala R'd'iD^, which included the Road District^ Mv Stringer aeked if the name of James Ooskedd v.&} on the roll. Mr Purnull objaoled,. • 'The Oourc Btilu the evidence could be taken for what It w;jb wo'th. Atto: argutnont ihe Ooart did not see auv uso m cumbering tho case with ouch ley'tdet-co. There was only one list which wus fvideuoe, and that list was not forthcoming. The next witness was David Morrow, who Bald he was a ratepayer m the ftaogitaia district. He owed do rates; they were paid* He nominated Hugh Oocbott and Jno. Ooskerie as candidates for the Board. Attended at the Road Board office on the 25th with the nomination papers. Got to the Road Board office about haif-paat eleven Mr Harper waa there. Mr Doyle subsequently came to the Road Board office, cloaa ou twelve o'clock, if it was not aotually that time, Aftor a brief conversation Mr Doyle asked to apeak with Mr Harper, and they went outside. Would not like to aay if it was after twelve when they came baok, bat as Mr Harper was bomlng m witness 8» w him putting a paper Into his pocket. Witness put his nomination papers beside a letter addressed to the reiuruiai* offioer. About ten minutes past twelve Me Doyle deposited a nomination paper on the table. Witnesa' watoh was fifteen jalauies past twelve, but it waa five minu'Qs faßt by the Government time. Sho Be'uralng Offioer was then coming m the door. Mr Harper having ljoked at wtuoßs'a papers, pulled a paper out of his pcKet aad said, " There, Doyle." Me Doj'l-j thea wrote something on the paper, Tnli w*b after twelve. Mr Striuger pointed oat that there were two different handirritings : on the nomluatlou. Witness continued ! When the Return* ing Officer came witneas objected to Mr Doyle's nomination being taken, Mr Doyle challenged the time, and witness asked the Returning Offioer what the time was. The Returning Officer said he had no watch and ha did not know. The Returning Officer took the papers. Witness had oompared his watoh with Mr Harper's. By Mr Purnell : Witness took his time from the railway at Aahburton. He was m Aahburton about a week previous to the nomination, and he oompared his watch then with the railway time, He always kept It five minutes fast, so as not to mias trains, and when he came into ABhburton three days subsequent to the nomination, it was still five minates fast. By Mr Stringer : Witness voted at the election James Ooskerie, one of the petitioners and a oandidate at the reoent election, said that he voted at the election • i ■. ■ . This was the oaee^or the petitioners. Mr Purnell opened the case for the respondent. He was not very dear from the petitioners' case what there was to reply to, beyond the objection that the nomination paper was not put m proper time. There teemed to be some question raised of the nomination paper not being properly drawn. Mr Stringer said that some Important words had been omitted m the nomination paper which had been subsequently added, but It was then after the proper hoar. Mr Purnell continued his address indicating that Mr Doyle, who had had the correct time would show that the nomination had been put m m ample time. He called ; — John Doyle, the respondent who said that he went to the Road Board office on Domination day. He arrived there at half paat eleven by his watoh. His watoh was two minutea fast on the Saturday before. His nomination paper was filled up before nine. If the Seturning Offioer had been there, witness would .-have handed the papar to him. Witness made an addition to the paper after be arrived at the office. After asking Mr Harper's advioa he added some words which had baen omitted. It wait before twelve when he altered the paper jif it had been after twelve he would not have altered the piper, as ho considered it was a perfeot document. About ■ twenty minutes to twelve Mr Harper said that if the Returning Offioer did not arrive he would send the papers to him. That was why he touched the papers By Mr Stringer : Did not remember Mr Harper telling the Returning Offioer he wia late. Remembered Morrow objectiug to witness's paper, and asking the Returning Offioer tor the lime. The Returning Offioer Bald he had no watoh* Oould not say what the time was when Mr Morrow objected to the papgr. The Returning Offioer was there m time, Witneas had given his nomination paper to. Mr Harper, and got it baok again to add the names. Mr Harper had it m hia pocket. Charles John Harper, Chairman of the Rangltata Road Board, remembered Mr Doyfe coming to the Board's Office about half-past eleven. He asked witnesß to come outside, and aßked him If the paper was m order. Witness said that he thought it was, only it' might be better if Doyle added the words " We the undersigned electors." The words were added and the paper laid on the table before twelve o'clock . By Mr Stringer : When he had the conversation with Doyle, the latter gave him his paper. Witneas put it m hie pocket and kept it a few mlnntes. He suggested that Doyle should add the words and gave him back the paper, Doyle had finished writing before the Returning Offioer arrived. By witness s watoh, the Returning Officer was about ten minutes late, but the oorreot time would be about five minutes to twelve, On the day after the nomination, witness checked his watoh by the WiDßlow stationmaster'a watoh and he found that it wsb eighteen minutes faat W. Slmpßon produoed the nomination papers of Messrs Obskerie and Oorbett, the defeated candidates . ' - This was the respondent's case Mr Purnell addressed the Court on the law and facts of the case Mr Stringer replied. The Court said that m deciding a one of this sort it would be necessary nnder Clause 51 of the Aot to adhere strictly to the petition The qaestion as to the advertising of the election did not ooma within the scope of the present enquiry. With regard to the petition, the allegation that the nomination waa not given m within time or m the manner prescribed by the Aot waa the prlnolpal oae. In a small country place there were doubtless many dißorepanoies m the time shown by the tlme-pleoei of the residents. The petitioners to establish their case would require to have shown bßyond all doubt that the nomina* tion was deposited after twelve. This they had not done and the' weight of evidence went to show that the nominations were m, and the Returning Officer arrived about or a little before 12. He certainly thought, however, that it was the duty of the Returning Officer to have been at the offioe some considerable time before the hour appointed for the closing of nominations. With regard to the second allegation of the petition, he did uot see that any irregularities bad been shown that would tend to defeat the fairness of the eleotion. He might say that m deciding the oase he had not considered the technical objeotlon to the evidence of the witnesses for tha petition, but had decided ft on its merits. The petition would be dismissed. No order was made a.3 to c,o«ta, ,