ELECTION INQUIRY

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 2456, 8 May 1915, Page 7

ELECTION INQUIRY

TAUSIARUNUI CASE PETITIONER ASKS FOR A SCRUTINY MR. JENNINGS'S QUALIFICATIONS (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) Auckland, May 7. The Taumarunui election petition was further cousidered by Mr. Justico Cooper and Mr. Justico Chapman today. Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for the petitioner, C. K. Wilson, and Mr. G. P. Findlay for the respondent, W. T. Jennings.

In the course of his argument Mr, Johnstone referred to various groups of persons whose votes he submitted should bo disallowed. There were several aliens, two infants, nine persons who admittedly lived outside the district, and two others, including the respondent, whoso residence outside the district was disputed. There was a general group of people who at the time they claimed registration had not fulfilled residential requirements.

Mr. Justice Cooper remarked that there was no evidence that those last> mentioned were not qualified. Counsel relied solely upon tho invalidity of forms, and the count would have to consider tho effect of tho decision of the Full Court.

Mr. Johnstone agreed that he relied on the invalidity of the forms, except in one case. In the general list lie had mentioned among other groups were full-blooded Maoris and all persons who at the time they claimed registration had not fulfilled residential qualifications.

After further argument Mr. Justico Cooper said the main question before tho present Court was: Had a person a status, not when he was put on tho roll, but when he cast his vote? Was he a person qualified to vote? If the Court ordered a scrutiny, a point that had yet to bo considered, it would become necessary to open every ballot paper to the number of 7000 odd. That would probably take three weeks or more.

Counsel said that even if the ballot papers were opened it would not be possible to identify voting papers where the counterfoil was missing. Replying to a query from the Bench, counsel said admissions 'had roughly reduced the number of votes asked to be disallowed to about 60.

Mr. Findlav: Jennings's majority at the election was 205.

Mr. Justice Chapman: Then if all those 60 votes were disallowed you still have 145 against him. Mr. Johnstone responded that he did not rely on the actual number of votes disallowed, but more upon irregularities. He argued that a scrutiny should be ordered, and stated that at several booths counterfoils were missing. Taking in 25 votes quite unaccounted for, thero were 376 cases of votes which could not be identified with the roll numbers. It was possible also that under the heading of plural voting alone 156 cases would bo discovered.

Counsel then camo to the case of Jan es Burns Young. There could, said Mr. Justice Cooper, have been nothing more irregular than Voung's action in sending in claims which he witnessed without having seen them signed. He admitted 20 such cases. Mr. Johnstone: I submit there were more than 20. The evidence was sufficient to suggest that he made a practice of it. No pains were spared by the electoral office to mako it plain to people how the forms were to bo filled in. Young must have known exactly what was required. Young was a, most energetic man, having nlaced about 600 people on the roll. "When the case was opened I knew of four instances of claims having been attested by Young and subsequently signed by the claimants. One witness proved two' more. I selected forms at random, and in every case Young admitted they were signed by him before they wero signed by the claimants. I was able to take 16 from a bundle and proved 15 of them. His evidence as to the number is entirely unreliable. He was obviously a man who had no sense of his duty, because when confronted by Your Honour with having done a highly improper thing, he turned round and said that was a technical breach. Mr. Justice Cooper: The matter and manner of his evidence show that he was unworthy of belief. Mr. Johnstone: "That is so, and I submit that the inference which will be drawn from 'his conduct is not that he returned 20 or 40 forms improperly, but that he made a practice of it. He was a paid servant of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, a. man whose business it was_ to got claims filled in, and lie did it in the easiest possible way for himself. Young's conduct afforded ovidence of irregularities of the most serious and far-reaching kind. Not only was it that persons were put on the roll without qualification, but the wholo declaration which was required to be made was done away with." In regard to the question as to whether Young was an agent of Mr. Jennings, counsel quoted cases on the point to show that he was. It could not be said he continued, that, the election wbb other than in doubt. There were still about 240 votes in question. Was Mr. Jennings Qualified? , Mr. Johnstone then came to the question as to whether Mr. Jennings was entitled to be a candidate at tlie election. It was submitted that ho was not so entitled. Ho was not qualified by law to be an elector in the district, was wrongly on the roll, and therefore was liot qualified to stand as a candidate. Ihe matter resolved itself into a question of residence. Was Jennings a resident in Taumarunui district for one month previous to the closing of the roll? There must be some permanence about an individual's residence. Visits/ for_ business or pleasure did not show residence. The home he maintained for his wife and family should be treated as his residence.

_ Mr. Justice Cooper: A man may reside in two or throe places. Counsel: I submit that for the purposes of tho Electoral Act he could not do so.

The hearing was adjourned until next day.