DECLARED VOID.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14978, 27 May 1914, Page 3

DECLARED VOID.

LYTTELTON HABBOUF BOARD ELECTION.

CONFUSION ABOUT" ROLLS.

A. petition, signed by Messrs D%koß. G. R. Whiting, J. Macfarlane, W- T. Woods, and J. McGettrick, alleging certain irregularities in *ho election of two members to the Lyttelton Harbour Board, to represent the combined districts of the counties °f Paparua, Tawera, Malvern, Springs, Ellesmere, Halswell, Heathcote, and Sei*"*J'n, and tho borough of Spreydon, formed the 6ubject of an enquiry held °y Mr T. A, B. Bailey. S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Tho election was hold on April 29th. Tho returning officer declared Messrs Thomas Dewar Boag and James Storry duly elected, and the votinc was as follows:—T. D. J3oag 831. .1. Storrv 826, D. Sykes S'Jl. and J. Hoynolds "SS. The petition sot out that in view of tho fact that the votes cast for J. Storry exceeded those for D. Sykes merely by live, and that tho disallowed votes claimed for D. Sykes as valid exceeded the said number of five, even without disallowing any improperly allowed to James Storry* the result of the election was materially affected by the irregularities, and the petitioners prayed it might be determined that D. Sykes wa& duly elected, instead of James Storrv. 'or m tho alternative, that, the election was void.

•"Mr T. W. Roue appeared for tho petitioners. Mr J. J. Dougall lor Messrs T. D. Boag and J. Stortv, and Mr H. J. Beswick for tho Returning Officer (Mr T. McGuinness). % Mr Rowe raised the point that objections had been taken to one of tho petitioners' qualifications, but 3lessrs Dougall and Beswick stated that they were satisfied that all the petitioners possessed the necessary qualifications. Mr Rou-o outlined tho case for the petitioners, and asked leave to delete certain minor clauses from the petition. _ Mr Dougall contended that all words in the petition with reference to how a voter recorded his vote must bo excised from the petition. It was, he claimed, most improper to thus divulgo the secrecy of the ballot. Mr Rowo contended that Section 2*2 of the Local Elections Act and Amendment Act. WIS, covered tho case. Tho information wsi. obtained after the poll had closed, and was voluntarily given by the voters. Mr Dougall said the point was that tho witnesses could no£ be asked in Court how t.hey voted.

Tho Magistrate held it was immaterial how they voted. Mr Rowe called Mary Kudd to substantiate the apparent, case of double voting.

Mr Beswick contended that time was being wasted to decide a question which was apparently a matter of law. According to tho Act, if it appeared that any person had voted twice, the Returning Officer had no option but to disallow both votes.

Mary Elizabeth Rudd said she voted at the Croscnt road polling booth and at no other place. Frederick John Smith, bricklayer, Spreydon. said he voted at South Crescent road, and did not vote anywhere else.

Thomas Woods, 120 Lincoln road, Spreydon. said there was another Thonias' Woods living on the Lincoln road. . Ho (witness) applied for a vote at the Lincoln road polling-booth, and was refused, as tho deputy-returning officer said another person of his name had already voted.. Witness knew that his name was 6u the main roll, and that of the other Woods'on, the supplementary roll; but tie deputy-returning officer said he had no supplementary joll. Being refused a vote, witness went to the South Crescent road poll-ing-booth, and there recorded his vote.

Mr Beswick said he would admit that tho deputy-returning officer (Mr Hadfield) was not aware of the existence of a supplementary roll until late some time in the afternoon. Wnether or not that affected the election was another matter. ''..''

Mr Rowe: I will show that it has affected the results of the election.

Lillian O. Downing, a property holder in tho Spreydon electorate, said she i was refused a vote at the Lincoln road polling booth, although her name was on the supplementary roll. Mildred Rose Hancock stated that her, name alsb appeared ,ou the,supplementary roll, and that she had been refused a vote at the Lincoln road polling booth. J>uncan Matheson 'stated that his "■number was 2600 on the supplementary roll, and that he was not permitted to vote.

' Stella Merritt, No. 2601 on the supplementary roll, said that at 6 p.m. sho was refused the right to vote at tho Lincoln road polling booth. Ada McFarlane, No. 259-1 on the supplementary roll, said sho was refused a vote at Packwood's Store polling booth.

Jane McFarlano. a resident of liarrington street. No. 2179 on the main roll, deposed that at Packwood's Store she was refused a vote. She was asked if she had any property in Spreydon, and on replying that she had, was told she had no vote.. Other members, of her family also did not vote because of this statement by the doputy-returning officer.

Isabella Sarah Blackie, No. 1373 on tho supplementary roll, was told by the denuty-returniue -officer at the South Orescent road pollinsr booth that her name was not on the roll.

Louisa Rose Blackie. mother of the previous witness, said her number was 1374 on the supplementary roll, and she was refused a vote at tho South Crescent road polling booth.

Emily McGinnis, deputy-returning officer at Packwood's store, said there was a misunderstanding as to the cases of Mrs Macfarlane and another who were refused votes. She first of all asked Mrs Macfarlane where her property -was, and then receiving a reply that she had no property, asked whero she lived and Mrs Macfarlane replied, "On tho Fills!"

To Mr Rowe: She had not refused anyone a vote because they did not have proneTtv qualifications. Julius R. Marriner. returning officer at. Orescent road, said ho was aware of the existence of a supplementary roil. Bo refused about si** persons whoso names were not on the supplementary roll, and all these people were quite satisfied. Freda Freeman, -poll clerk with Mrs MeGinnis. remembered a Jane Macfarlnne askinj; for papers, and corroborated the statement niado by the demtrv-returning officer. When the Court adjourned for lunch, Mr Rowe was proceeding to call evidence to show that the roll had been allecedlv improperly orepared. Both "Mr Beswick and Mr Dougall contested the admissabilityvof this evidence, and the Macn'strate said he ■would look into the question. On resuming in the afternoon, Mr Beswick made the sugsrestion that as there'was sufficient evidence for the Court- to dec-Tare that the election was *"oid, proceedings should be cut short. As far as his client (the. Returning OfficerVwas concerned; ho thought that it could not/be suggested that he had neglected his '■ duty. A mistake had heen made by one •-£ the deputies fail ing to notice the supplementary roll attached +_. + he main roll. Mr Doug all agreed that there wa-s sufficient evidence to declare the election void. He desired a ruling as to whether the election could be declared •artiallv void, sinco 3lr Boags election, could not havo been affected by any mistakea made. ~, • ~ Mr Rowo said they d:d not disauta

any "misconduct on tho part -of tlt» Returning Officer, but they did submit that there had been gross carelessness on the part of deputy-officers, and for which their chiet could not bo held responsible. He would ask for full costs though ho thpught' it very hard that the costs should fall on the Returning Officer. Possibly, the Harbour Board would pay tho amount. The Magistrate declared the election void, and said he would reserve his decision on tho question of costs. On the question of costs. Mr Beswick contended that since the Returning Officer had not been summoned to appear in these proceedings, costs could not be given against hira. While not agreeing, Mr Dougall said he thought that if the Magistrate found the Returning Officer free from blamo in the matter, the local body should rightly bear tho cast. Mr Rowe concurred' in this.

The Court then adjourned. The Magistrate said he would announce his decision as to costs at 10.30 a.m. on Friday, next.