THE DUTIES OF RETURNING OFFICERS.

Evening Star, Issue 2863, 23 April 1872, Page 3

THE DUTIES OF RETURNING OFFICERS.

A case cropped up in Marlborough a few days since which has allowed of a judici?' decision as to the duties of returning officeAt the nomination of candidates for or e ‘ j the seats in the local Provincial Council ' i one candidate, Mr George Benders' been proposed ; and the returning of ‘ , thereupon declared the candid? te ‘ to be elected; but he was intorrup' <. Pf i i friends of Mr Samuel Johnson ' wllo clfdme ,i to have his name proposed. returui officer consented, Johnson pr e( £ and a poll ensued, resultir in the *y, at Q [ Henderson. bronght an action applying to Mr Jushty , Ricllinond for a rulp it'st, calling upon t Je returning officer to show cause why ’ a man d a)nus should not issue requiring hr m to endorse the aame of Henderson msV ead 0 f j o hnson on the writ. The point lied was whether the returning officer, after paving declared Mr Henderson elected, w ag entitled to receive another nominator jn ma de immediately after he had made * ne declaration. The Judge said he d ! 8 I the case on its merits ; and deal« with it in the following manner : y When a returning officer has been allowed, without challenge or interference with his solemn proceedings of publicly declaring such and such candidates duly elected—fiat I think is his final action. But the present case must be considered as being taken out of the general rule in such cases, by the fact that an attempt was made to interrupt the returning officer at the time. This attempt was made on behalf of a duly qualified candidate, by, it is true, one who was not an elector, but who was authorised by the qualified candidate so to act for the purpose of asking an elector to propose him. The attempt was at once noticed by the returning officer at the moment, and the second candidate, Mr Johnson, was at once proposed, and the nomination accepted by the returning officer and the meeting. This takes away from the irrevocable nature of the act of a returning officer--takes away from the declaration tiro force which otherwise belongs to it. The Court must exercise the greatest care and caution in disturbing the final act of the returning officer ; and I think the returning officer was within his duty when he allowed the second person to lie proposed. But the reasons given by Mr Barleyman in his affidavit are, in my opinion, quite’ insufficient. It is quite clear that a returning officer cannot take the opinion of the meeting on such a point- Ho is himself the judge of what is right for him to do ; he is hound to acton iue own judgment, hound to look to the

revisions of the law, and to follow them out. say this lest I should be understood as interfering with the solemn duties of returning officers as prescribedJby the law. Respecting this case, the judgment stands on the suc(e sful attemj t made to interrupt the Returning Officer in t’ e very act of declaration, at the very moment that that declaration was made.” Rule discharged with costs.