ELECTION VOID

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2462, 15 May 1915, Page 7

ELECTION VOID

M. JENNINGS LOSES TAUMARUNDI

RESIDENTIAL STATUS NOT

FULFILLED

ANOTHER ELECTION

THE POSITION OF J. B. YOUNG

(By I'eleem^h.—Press Association.? Auckland, May 14. Their Honours Mr. Justice Cooper and Mr. Justice Chapman delivered , judgment at the Supreme Court this morning in tl e Taumarunui election petition case, in which Mr. A. H. Johnstone aiid Mr. Sharpies appeared for the petitioner, C. IC. Wilson, aaid Mr - G. P. Findlay and Mr. J. I). Vernon for the respondent, W. T. Jennings. The Court decided "that the election for the Taumarunui i seat must be declared void, on the ground that tho elected candidate, Mr. Jennings, did not, at the time of- the election, possess an elector's qualifications to be a candidate, as his name was not on the roll for New Plymouth, which the Court decided was his place of residence, and he had not qualified as a voter in the Taumaru- • nui electorate, to the roll of Which he had transferred his name some time before the election. , Residential Qualifications. In the course of their decision, the Court dealt at length with the first and principal point raised —the right of the respondent to stand as a candidate for the seat. Discussing respondent's claim for a transfei to the Taumarunui roll on November [> an dlO, J 914, Their Honours remarked: "The question is, what rule is to guide lis in determining as a matter of fact whether respondent had resided in the Taumarunui district for a month immediately preceding tho date of his registration on tho roll of that district? In general terms, 'residence' usually imports some idea of • fixity, though not necessarily of permanence, and the claim made here by respondent is that he resided either at the house'of his friend, where he knew there was always a room available for liirn, though lie had no sort of tenure, or at the hotel at To' Kuiti, where he usually stayed. He must, however, show that in- the popular sense he had i for that month resided in'tho district. It is not' sufficient that he made a prolonged visit. It- may be that ■ a' person who, owing to tho nature of his occupation, wanders ' round the district 1 without leaving it has a claim to the franchise, but that is not respondent's condition. Re-spondent-had a ".place of abode" within' Section (iO'at Now Plymouth, and within She principle of all the authorities lie had. a right to claim that he resided there. A house there belonged to his wife, and it was the matrimonial home of both. He had an incontrovertible right to go and remain there whenever it suited him. ' was, in fact and in law, his home. .It seems to us that the real position was that he thought he had better transfer his registration to the district in which betook so''great an interest and which ho desired but he had never removed tliither or become in any sense a resident there." If the question arose in another- way it would in such a caso be unjust to deprive a man of his vote I pn a district where he resided, merely

because he "had gone on a prolonged electioneering tour to another. We are of opinion he did. not reside in. Tau* marunui, but that he did reside in New Plymouth, as ho ivas not on. any other'roll it follows that we must in terms of Section 196, Sub-section (FJ. disallow his vote."

After holding that, as tho respondent was not an elector within the delimwon,- he could not- be described as "a person registered as an elector," tho Court adds: "In the result we aro compelled to hold that tho respondent was not at the date of tho election qualified to be elected as a member of tho House of Representatives."

Secrecy of the Ballot. The Court proceeded to refer to certain other questions which were raised by the petition as to which a great deal oi' evidence was called, and to which arguments of counsel were addressed. As 1.0 the irregularities at .Mahirakau,; the conclusion is that the only provision for preserving secrecy was such as the voter must create himself hy taking caw to lean over his paper and fold it ueloio he altered his position. This must pe contrasted with the requirements of tile statute. The principle of election by. secret balldt was, disregarded and could not bo observed at this booth when no provision was made and no adequate precaution taken to ensure, secret voting •and each voter was left to his own measures to ensure the secrecy of his vote. It- appears to us that both these conditions would have to concur before a Court could pronounce that tho irregularities were such as ought to be condoned by it. Here a timfd voter might havo been inclined to alter his or her vote rather than run the risk of havuiß it disclosed and that is what the'ballot is meant to guard against. Counsel for the respondent argued that the Court ought to say that no such effort had ensued, because notoriously most of tho people' who. voted there belonged to the Labour Party and were supporters of the respondent and would have vota* for him under any conditions. . Whon the Court declines to allow ail irregularity to affect the result it usually does so because it can see that, having regard to the number of votes polled at the place where it occurred, an irregularity could not have affected tho result. The figures here do not tend to that conclusion. The majority was 205. From these, according to the admissions made at tho hearing, votes which must be disallowed ?,mount to about 35. \ otes to about the same number are seriously challenged some of which would certainly- havo to be disallowed. If these arc taken together the majority secured b,' the respondent is absorbed. To ascertain the actual result a scrutiny would he accessary, as we cannot speculate as to who-has the benefit of the 7'J.challenged votes."

' "Most Reckless and Unscrupulous Irregularity."

The irregularity committed by J. B. Young ill sending out for sig-; nature a number of enrolment forms already signed by him as' a witness was thus referred

'.) bv the Court:—"There, was another irregular proceeding as to which we think we- ought to express our opinion. A man named James Burns Young was employed for some time prior to tho election in the capacity of agent for the Licensed Victuallers' Association. He busied himself in collecting applied iions from numerous' persons to be placed on the roll, and on the day of the poll was engaged marshalling motorcars for the liquor party. He says he never was an agent for the respondent, but once telegraphed to him that he was short of forms of application for enrolment. He sent in some 600 of these 'applications,_jnost of which, it was admitted, were made by persons entitled to' be on the roll. The most reckless, and, we think, unscrupulous irregularity was committed' in connection with this proceeding. Respondenfc was in.: no way to blame for fclieso proceedings,- and Young was, as wo

havo said, in doing these acts, _ the agent of persons engaged in tho liquor trade only, The votes of tho electors so placed on the roll have been decided bv the Full Court to bo vaJid, despita irregularities. . . . Tho electors probably acted in ignorance. Wo do not treat this as an irregularity aficcting the result of the election, but we mention it as a grave question, which may ariso hereafter, as to how far serious irregularities committed by a person so closely connected with another branch of the day's proceedings may affect tho result of an election.

The Court went on to say that there wore otber irregularities alleged, and in part proved. These irregularities, taken together, might havo added some weight to that at Mahirakau, but the Court does not pronounce any opinion as to what result would have 'ensued bad it been obliged to consider the matter. Wo are compelled to decide this case upon the question of the qualification or want of qualification of the respondent. \Ve do not definitely determine the effeot of tho proved irregularities. For this reason, too, we have not thought it necessary to order a scrutiny or to express any opinion upon the numerous and difficult questions as to the particular claims to vote that have been challenged. In result we hold the election to be void, and shall certify to the Speaker accordingly." Mr. H. H. Ostler, who represented Mr. Johnstone, for tho petitioner, at tho, giving of the Court's decision, suggested that each party should be ordered to pay its own . costs subject to the respondent bearing the additional expense incurred by the reference of certain legal points to the l'ull Court at Wellington, Mr. Finlay expressed his thanks to the opposing counsel, and accepted the olfer, which the Court remarked to be an exceedingly genorous one. i Costs for the Full Court proceedings were fixed at 20 guineas, and an order was made in accordance with Mr. Ostler's suggestion. J. B. Young's Position. At the request of the Registrar, Mr. F. W. Schramm, Mr. Ostler referred to the question of a- possible indemnity for John Burns Young. Mr. Justice Coopor replied that seeing that Young's evidence had been so untrustworthy and unbelievable tlio Court had decided uotto issue a certificate of indemnity. Mr. Ostler then informed Their Honours that the six months within whjcH Young could be prosecuted had expired, but that the Registrar, acting on the advice of the Crown Law Office, had already laid an information against Young, and would now take proceedings. !

Can Mr. Jennings Contest By-Election?

A question has arisen as to the eligibility of Mr. W. T. Jennings for candidature-at tho by-election for tho Taumarunui seat. Authorities consulted this morning express the opinion that au it is not -necessary for a candidate to be on tho rpll as an elector of the district he actually seeks to represent in Parliament, so long as he is on the. electoral roll of some other district, and as the Court has decided that New Plymouth is his place of residence he will be entitled to enrolment upon declaration on tho Taranaki electoral roll from which he obtained transference to the Taumarunui roll 'last November. In such case Mr. Jennings, as an elector oil tho Now Plymouth roll, would be quite eligible as a candidate for the Taumarunui or any other seat in New Zealand.

The result of the-Taumarunui election petition will mean that a by-election will also have to be held in this electorate, and Mr. C. K. Wilson, v.ho was the sitting member laSt term, will again be the Government candidate. Tho state of Hie parties now is: Government 40, including Mr. Tau Henarc, and parties in Opposition 38, and two by-elec-tions to be held. -