THE BELL WARD ELECTION.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2345, 7 October 1870, Page 2

THE BELL WARD ELECTION.

To (hi Editor of the. Ercnhuj Star. Sir, —As I observe one of tlic candidates for the representation of Bell Ward, and also a certain section of the ratepayers, seem desirous of fixing the blame of the recent law proceedings in Regina v. Bagley upon my shou’ders, in consequence of my refusal to .allow a second scrutiny of the votes in the late election, I deem it desirable for my own justification and for the satisfaction of the citizens to ask you to give insertion to a short statement of facts. The day after the election Mr Woodland and his major-domo, Mr Carrol, waited upon me, and requested me to allow a fresh scrutiny of the votes, wiih a view, as I understood, of reversing the result of the election if the scrutii y proved Mr Bagley to have been improperly returned. Ii; reply I stated my convictk n that mjther I nor the Council itself, had the power to do what was asked, but before giving a final answer I told them I would consult the Corporation Solicitor on the sub* ject. I accordingly submitted the following questions to that gentleman, viz.— Ist. The Heturning Officer having declared Mr Bagley duly elect cl, whether the Maj o • or Council can allow or institute a second scrutiny as requested or not ?

Answer —The Corporation Ordinance of ' IBG3 is so •xeessively vague ami meagre upon the necessary procedure at civic elections, that we hesitate to express any decided opinion upon this question ; we are, however, inclined to the opinion that the Council cannot legally allow a second scrutiny to take place, because, as it seems to us, the scrutineers and returning officer, having examined the bal'ot papers, and having according to their judgment, declared the result, they are juiicfl ojfino. and cannot lawfully repeat the process. Another Query.—-Are the Council bound in any way to g > beyond the retain • ing officer's declaration, or must Mr Woodland and Mr Bagley settle the question between themselves by legal proceedings. Answer. The Ordinance docs nob cxpressiy, nor, as it appears to us, impliedly, require any declaration, np irt, or return to be made by the Councillor or other person presiding, before whom, according to section 27, the polling is to be held. It appears to us that some statement, declaration, or certificate by the scrutineers ag tq tj)c result oj the po Hug is the only guide which, by implication, the Council are given under the Ordinance to dd ermine who has been elected. And th»i the ('itiiiio'd hon ho init/iorify (> ijo lit It tin) ojlldol decision. Wo therefore think I hid the Council should Tcinniii tjitioH'i-iii, mid lewe -1/ r WoodI'Uid to try the ijiiextion irith the siltimj CouncUhrr in the Sn/, rente Court. From the above it will be patent to my fellow citiz ms that I could adopt no other course than I did. Apologising for trespassing on your space, I am, sir, Yours obediently, H, S. Fisir, Junr. Dunedin, Oct >bcr 7.