THE REGENT ELECTION.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 49, 27 February 1901, Page 3

THE REGENT ELECTION.

THE PETITION SUSTAINED.

Yesterday morning Mr Barton, S.M., held an enquiry under the Regulation of Local Elections Act, 1876, touching the petition of Messrs Joyce and others that the Harbor Board election of members for the Borough be declared void. Mr R. N. Jones appeared for the petitioners. In opening he said the petition had been laid because the circumstances atending the election were somewhat peculiar. Mr Joyce’s desire was to obtain a recount of the votes, but in the course of the investigations it had been found that votes had been taken out of a box not bein' 7 the proper ballot-box, and also that the Returning Officer had himself exercised a vote, this being distinctly contrary to law. There were a number of other irregularities, such as the colour of the ballot papers, which should have been white, and the persons who were allowed to remain in the polling booth whilst the votes were being counted. These irregularities were trifling in themselves, and were not urged as a ground of the petition, but it was partly owing to these irregularitiers that the more serious ones took place, because if there had not been another ballot-box in the room the papers referred to could not have been misplaced and being misplaced would not have been detected but for their color until the votes had been counted. Under the licensing poll express provision was made for rectifying this class of error, and such a provision being necessary, shewed that the law as it stood prevented such votes being counted. The principle ground of tho petitioners’ complaint was that the votes had been wrongly counted, and from the evidence it would be shewn that tliero were three counts all different from each other, and on two of these Mr Joyce was shewn to be returned, but for some reason

the Returning Officer took the middle count, in which Mersrs Whinray and Joyce tied for second place. Even then Mr Joyce would be satisfied with the casting vote, as it was given, if ho were sure that the votes had been correctly counted. Mr Jones produced authorities to show that a recount could be ordered, hut would have to take place by the Magistrate and not by the Returning Officer. Ho then called evidence.

G. J. A. Johnstone, Clerk of the Court, formally produced a parcel of ballot papers used at the election.

W. J. Quigley deposed that he was Returning Officer for tho Harbor Board, and had conducted the recent election. He produced the declaration of the poll showing the names of tho candidates and the number of votes polled. Ho had voted at the election. The Borough and County election were held in the same room, tho ballot papers for tho one being pink and the other white. Each had a separate ballot box, properly labelled. After the poll closed the votes were counted. On the first count Mr Joyce tied with one of the other candidates, and on the second count Mr Joyce again tied with Mr Jus. Whinray. On the third count he believed that Mr Joyce was one ahead. All the papers counted were not taken out of tho Borough box. Three papers which had been placed there by mistake were taken out of the County box and the votes on them recorded for the candidates for whom they were given. This was done previous to the termination of tho first count; Witness called out the number upon two occasions, and his poll clerk upon the third. On the latter only the three leading candidates’ votes were counted.

J. M. Gumming stated that he had acted as poll clerk. On the first count Mr Pettie had 183, and Messrs Joyco and Whinray 182 each. The second count showed Mr Pettie IS2, and Messrs Joyce and Whinray 181 each. He did not know the result of the third count, as lie had ■called out the numbers. This he had done very carefully. Tho Returning Officer, Mr Quigley, asked witness if any of the scrutineers had asked for a further count.

Witness replied that no such application had been made in his hearing, and he was there all the time.

Donald Murray deposed that he was Mr Joyce’s scrutineer at the election. He kept tally sheets of each count, which were made at the time, and these ho now produced. On the first count the figures were: Harris 119, Joyce 182, Matthews 91, Pettio 182, Tucker 128, Whinray 180. The second count showed Pottie 182, and Joyce and Whinray ISI each. It was on this that the poll was declared. Mr Cumming called the numbers in the third count, only the three candidates being taken. On this count Mossrs Joyce and Whinray had 182 each, and Mr Pettie 181. Ho had asked for a further count, which was refused. The papers taken out of the County box were added after the second count, one vote being given to Harris, one to Pettie, and two to Whinray. Thomas Cotter gave [corroborative evidence as to what had happened on tho first count. He did not take any interest in tho subsequent events, and could not say how tho figures stood. Mr Murray demurred to the election being declared on the second count, and asked for a further count; but it was late, and the people outside were becoming impatient. Tho Bcturning-Officer cross-examined the witness as to Mr Murray having asked for a further count, and as to the time when the papers were taken out of the County ballot-box. This concluded the evidence, Mr J ones stating that that would be the case for the petitioners. He again reiterated that what Mr Joyce desired was a recount of the votes, as he wished to avoid a fresh election.

The Magistrate : Supposing a recount is ordered, and I find that the ballotpapers taken out of the other box ought not to have been counted, how are we to find which are those papers ? Mr Jones : That was what was troubling me, Your Worship, So far as the Betuming Officer’s vote is concerned, that could easily be ascertained. Perhaps Your Worship would accept the evidence of the witnesses as to whom the votes were given and deduct them from the candidates. The Magistrate : I cannot do that. It seems to me an impossibility. After further argument, His Worship decided that the counting of votes, which had not been taken from the ballot-box,

disclosed an irregularity, which, in his opinion, under the circumstances tended to defeat the fairness of the election. He had no option but to declare tho whole election void. It was the only satisfactory solution of the difficulty, and each party would bear their own costs,