HAWKE'S BAY PETITION

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2395, 26 February 1915, Page 6

HAWKE'S BAY PETITION

A POSTPONEMENT LAW QUESTION FOR COURT OF APPEAL THE VOTES IN DISPUTE. (By Telegraph.—Spccial Reporter.) Napier, Februarv 25. The present stago of the hearing of the Hawke's Bay election petition came to an end unexpectedly yesterday. Ono of the most important questions of law raised during the case is to .be moved to tho Court of Appeal for argument and determination. Tho decision of this <luostion will have an important bearing on the subsequent proceedings under the petition.

Mr. C. P. Skerrett, ££!., with Mr. H. B. Lusk and Sir. W. G. Wood, apr peared for tlio petitioner, and Sir Jolui I*indlay, K.C., with Mr. P. Levi, for the respondent. Admitted Facts, Mr. Skerrett stated that it was admitted that the electoral rolls were made by the Registrar, and the facts gazetted as required by the Legislature Act. He intimated to the Court also that he was unable to .call Miss White, whose vote under declaration had been mentioned the preceding day. The lady was too : ill to attend the Court. He asked that the Court should make an order directing that a scrutiny- be' made of the counterfoils to discover which of the declaration votes were identifiable. The Court made the order uig'rSpecial Case to be stated. Mr. Skerrett stated that it bad "been arranged between counsel that the parties should agree in 6tating a 6pecial case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal at its next sitting: "Whether, if a voter's name is without fraud or wilful misconduct placed on the subsisting roll, as an elector, although he did not possess the necessary residential qualifier tions, or is without fraud or wilful misoonduct retained: on 'the roll, although he. had, since being placed on the roll, lost or forfeited his ■ residential qualification, the Election Court can, under Section 196, Sub- ■ section F, of the Legislature Act, 1908, dieallow his vote at the election. Sir John Findlay suggested that the Court of Appeal might also arrange to decide the question raised in the laumarunui election petition and in the cay of Islands, petition as to the interpretation of law defining the time with--111 which a petition may be presented. The Chief Justice suggested that it might be arranged that both Election Courts would probably agree that the question be referred to the Court of Appeal, if the parties were agreeable, '

Recriminatory Case Abandoned, Sir John Findlay proceeded with his case. He did not propose to call evidence now, he said, on the residential qualifications, or lack of qualifications of a number of votes specified, because the value of evidence to be heard on that question would liow turn on what view the Court of Appeal would take of the special question. The respondent had stated l in his case that a large number o£ votes in favour of the respondent wero improperly rejected and disallowed, and that such vote's should be added to tho total of. the respondent. Mr. Skerrett had called a certain amount of evidenoe to show that a certain number of votes disallowed as informal should be allowed to his client, These jyerethe papers on'which the names of M Aah, Robt.," were wholly, struck out and the names "Hugh M'Lean" also struck out. There were a certain number of informal votes also, in which tho name of "Campbell, Hugh M'Lean," was completely struck out and the name Robt. also struck out.. He would apply -now to have the. other informal votes produced with the object of having votes of this latter class allowed to his clinnt.

Mr.: Skerrett argued that this evidence was inadmissible. No amendment of tho list of votes to which exception was to be taken by either of the parties could be made "without a special reason, and no .special reason had been advanced. In England' the rule was most strictly enforced by Election Courts. Mr. Justioe Edwards: In our ordinary jurisdiction it is the practice of-Judges to allow everything to be done to elucinatter. I don't see why we Bhould: allow ourselves to be hampered by the practice of English Courts. Sir Robert Stout asked whether there was any New Zealand rule like the English rule. f'kerrett said he was not sure of the existence of such a rule, and subsequently, after a search of the rules, said that he could find hone. Sir John Findlay argued that the votes of. the class to which he had referred: had been called for under the heading of informal votes improperly rejected. . Mr. Skerrett had called for informal votes at certain of the booths He was now calling for all the other informal votes. Their Honours directed that the informal votes be subjected to the scrutiny asked for by counsel for the respondent and the Court adjourned while it was made. : . . , • . 'The remit, of the scrutiny was that two other ballot papers were discovered with the names "Campbell; Hugh M Lean, ,' struck out, and also the name Bobt." ' Sir John Findlay said that with the exception of examining the declarations and the. counterfoils in order to ascertain how many of tho votes were identifiable they could go no further at-the present stage. He would abandon all of his recriminatory case with the exception of. that portion of it pertaining to the list of votes he hoped to have .disallowed under Section 196 of the Legislature Act, and to the other agreed lists put in. He would not insist,upon his claim to ■ have the eleotion voided owing to the polls not being open in time...

, The Chief Justice announced that he had received a telegram from the Court at Te Euiti to the .effect : that! tliey would adjourn decision of the question to bo submitted to the-Court of Appeal Until after the Court of Appeal had determined.it. The case' was adjourned until Wednesday, April 14. Votes at Issue. \ The result of the scrutiny of the counterfoils to discover which of the votes recorded by persons making declarations could be identified was that' 70 votes were found to be identifiable and 31 unidentifiable. Of these declaration votes 6ix were admitted to be valid, and they are included in the above totals,. All the other declaration votes are. assailed on . the ground that the declaration,' as in fact made, was one which no person could truthfully make aud that all the declarations wero therefore ' void. .Twelve declaration votes are attacked on the extra ground that the persons making tho declaration had no right to make it. 'jl'liero are 37 ballot-papers declared informal by the Magistrate, on which the name "Campbell" was left int-act, the names "Hugh M'Lean" struck out, and the names "M'Nab, Robert," , struck out. These, petitioner claims as Valid votes cast for him. There are six papers disallowed, in which the names "Campbell, Hugh M'Lean," are struck out and the name "Robert" struck out, the name "M'Nab" being left intact. These respondent claims as valid votes cast for him. There are seven votes of Maoris for a European member of Parliament. Five of these aro on 1 petitioner's list and two on respondent's. There are 6is Expeditionary Force votes on Which, in_ place of the name of the electoral district of Havre's Bay, the names of other places were written. On one of these was written "Wairoa," wliich is within the boundaries of Hawko's Bay district. Mr. Skerrott objects to all these _ votes as Jiiformal. The question of objection to tho votes of electors alleged not to be resident within the Hawke'6 Bay electoral district is, of oourso, deferred pending the result of the: special case. Six of .theso votes are attackod by Mr. iSkcrrett, and 57 by Sir-John Findlay. There are threo other papers in dispute, in which the elector did not record his vote in the proper way. One of these votes 1 was allowed as a valid vote for Dr. M'Nab, and Mr. Campbell claims that it was informal. Two others which wore disallowed as informal Mr. Campbell olaims were valid votes cast for him.

1 CAPTURED PACIFIC ISLANDS V . 9 NO TROUBLE WITH NATIVES. (By MceraDh— Press Association.) Auckland, February 25. _The steamer Wonganella, which ar» rived, this morning from the Ocean, Nauva, and Makatea Islands, was at Nauva for a short period during German rule following the declaration of war. It found that the Germans had taken into custody the captain of the British steamer Messina, but, being unable to detain him, put him ashore again. Within a few days the cruiser Melbourne took possession of the island. When'the Wonganella visited the island again last month everything was proceeding as usual. A British- administrator was in charge, with a fow Australian ■ troops. Practically all the Germans had' been deported. The new administration was having no trouble with the -natives. The phosphate, deposits are being worked by a British company.