DRAINAGE BOARD ELECTION.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2456, 18 February 1882, Page 3

DRAINAGE BOARD ELECTION.

B. Beetham, E?q., 8.M., sat in the Resident Magistrate’s Court this morning at eleven o’clock, to deliver judgment in the matter of the petition against the return of Dr, Prins as a member of the Drainage Board for the district of Ohristohnroh Northwest. The case was argued on the 9fch instant, Mr Joynt appearing in support of the petition, and Mr George Harper for the respondent. Hie Worship now delivered the following judgmentOn this petition it is contended that section 2 of the Act of 1875 so far qualifies section 7 ao to render any person being a ratepayer within any of the several districts into which the drainage district is divided, capable of being elected for any one of the said several districts. I do not see how the provisions of section 2 can be taken in part and rejected in part. If the several districts are to be deemed 11 the district” in all cases, and under all circumstances, the object of the electoral clauses of the Act would bo defeated, and the whole machinery of that portion of the Act reduced to an absurdity. I understand section 2 somewhat in this manner—that when the words “the district’’ are used, that term may be held to include the several districts, but that when the term “several districts ” is used it need not necessarily bo understood to mean invariably “ the district.” If the expression “ several districts ” is invariably to mean “ the district,” of what use would be the restriction of the vote in any election to the electors of any of the “ several districts ” ? The elector* of

“the (whole) district,” including all “the several district*,” would be qualified to vote at any election. We need not go further to show this. The whole tenor and scope of the Aot, 10 far a* it* election clause* arc concerned, seems to mo to warrant the conclusion that the several districts vote as several district*, and elect from candidates who mnst be qualified within their several districts. I, therefore, declare the election of Henry Horaford Pries void, Mr Joynt applied that James Edward Parker, the other candidate and one of the petitioners, should be declared duly elected in ;3laoe of Dr. Prins. The 48th clause of the Regulation of Local Election* Act, 1876, provided that the Resident Magistrate might, after inquiry, declare an election void, and might declare any other candidate to be duly elected. It was provided in the 3rd subsection of the second part of clause 50 of tho same Aot that if upon inquiry it ap. peared “ that the candidate was not capable of being elected to or of holding the office to which he was declared to be elected,” the election of; such candidate should bo void, “ and the candidate next highest on the poll not being already declared to be duly elected, and whose election is not void, shall bo declared to be duly elected,” His Worship did not think any evidence was given that Mr Parker was the “ candidate next highest on the poll,” Mr Joynt said he was the only other candidate, and his Worship would remember that Mr Harper for tho other side admitted the affirmation in the petition that Dr Prins and Mr Parker were the two candidates. The admission being made, no evidence was offered on the point, and the Court would bo held to be cognisant of the fact. His Worship concurred with this view, and was of opinion that subsection 3 of the second part of clause 50 of the Regulation of Local Elections Act conclusively settled the point as to the power of the Court to declare the other candidate elected. Ho therefore declared the election of Henry Hereford Prins to be void, and James Edward Parker to be duly elected in his place. Mr Joynt applied for costs under the 55th section of the Regulation of Local Elections Act, His Worship made tho required order, the costs being specified. The Court then adjourned.