KOWAI ROAD BOARD ELECTION.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2439, 30 January 1882, Page 4

KOWAI ROAD BOARD ELECTION.

An appeal against the election of members of this Road Board, held on January lltb, was heard at tbo Magistrate’s Court, Amberley, on Thursday, before O. Whitefoord, .Esq., R.M. Mr Stuart, a candidate for election, appeared to support his petition ; and Mr J. 8011, returning-offiser, appeared to defend this action.

The petition was road as follows : We, the undersigned, electors of the Kbwai Road Board district, hereby declare that wo verily believe that at the election to the office of members for the Road Board, holden at Bolcairn, on the llth day of January, 1882, at which Richard Bristow, Thomas Douglas, and C. G. King were declared to bo duly elected to the said offices, the said election is void upon upon the following grounds :—That tbo name of John Stuart was omitted from the polling papers ; and wo pray that an enquiry may bo made into the said election under tho provisions of the Regulation o( Local Elections Act, 1876, and that the said election may bo declared to bo void.—Given under onr hands this lG;b. day of January, 1882. John Stuart, Elector, Candidate ; John Dron, Elector; Walter Hunter, Elector.—Declared before me this 16th day of January, 1883, at Balcaim. Harold H. Fenton, Justice of tho Peace forthecobny of New Zealand.

After hearing the evidence, Mr Whitefoord said the matter was brought forward under the subsection 4 of section 50 of the Regulation of Local Elections Act, and sub-section 6 also applied to the matter. The first point he had to discover waa whether Mr Stuart complied with the notice as to delivering of his paper. Mr Bell was there to receive them, but bis notice ao far as verbally stated, did not say whether they were to be delivered to him personally or at the Road Board office. Section II of the Act set out that no one shou’d be deemed a nominated candidate whose paper was not delivered “at the place named ” in the notice of the election. Now, it seemed no place was so named, Stuart, Dron, and White had stated the papers were left in the box. As the advertisement appeared to have been vague, Stuart was justified in leaving hie paper at this place, and the conversation between him and the surveyor left no doubt but that the latter knew the paper had been left. Stuart would certainly not go to the office to -hide his paper, but put it in such a place that it would be seen and reach the returning officer. There was blame attached in not .stating a proper place, and again in not looking into the box. If he held that this did not ■defeat the fairness ef the election, he would bo taking an erroneous view, and therefore ho must declare the election void. It was not a case in which ho would order costs, except the notices of the enquiry, which would go with {the decision.