CITY ELECTION PROTEST.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1021, 3 October 1877, Page 3

CITY ELECTION PROTEST.

Toomer y. Banks. This case was again brought on this morning, when Mr Garrick, on behalf of Mr Toomer, called G. L. Lee, returning officer at the late election, who said that Mr Henry Toomer was a candidate on the occasion, and he came immediately after Mr Banks on the list—was the next in succession in the number of votes. His Worship then said that it only remained for him to declare the election of Henry Banks void, and to declare the next candidate on the list duly elected, and he made that declaration accordingly. Mr Garrick submitted that his client was entitled to the costs of the petition by reason that it was not grounded on any accident or misapprehension on the part of the returning officer, and that the evidence clearly showed that Mr Banks knew what the position was, and he took steps to avoid the consequences as soon as he had reason to fear for the validity of his election. It must be presumed that he knew the law, and it was therefore not right that the costs of the petition should be thrown upon the successful petitioner. Mr Garrick remarked that the case was analagous to a process for prohibition, where unless the matter was based upon a misapprehension, the mover for the prohibition was never ordered to pay the expenses when successful. The Court presumed that the ordinary rule would be followed, and that costs would be given against the defendant. Mr Harper hoped that costs would be given against the defendant, as there would then be ground for appeal. Mr Grarrick remarked that ho could not give the details of the expenses, and the question was allowed to stand over till next morning.