ELECTION PETITIONS COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2477, 15 March 1882, Page 3

ELECTION PETITIONS COURT.

fPBBBS ASSOCIATION TEtEQBAM.] AUCKLAND, March 14. The Election Petition Court sat to-day at Papakura for the determination of Mr Buckland’s petition against the return of Major Harris for Franklyn North, on the ground of certain charges made against the latter and Mr Shanaghan, the lieturning Officer. Chief Justice Prendergast and Mr Justice Gillies presided. Messrs Cotter and Whitaker appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Lusk for Major Harris, and Mr Shanaghan for himself. The proceodings commenced with an application by Mr Cotter for the excision of portions of the petition alleging that certain infanta and unqualified persona had voted.—Granted. The grounds of the petition were as follows: — (1) At .dangare,Mr Shanaghan declared avoting paper informal because the name of the voter was written across its face. (2) At Howick, he refused Dorell’s voting paper, upon being told he had not resided six months in the district (3) Robert Hanneway, Jan , practised intimidation. (4) At Howick, a person named Thos. Sutcliffe voted in respect of another person, whoso name appeared on the roll as James Sutolifff. (5) Mr Shanaghan having ltd the petitioner to believe there was only one ballot box at Otahuhu, he provided only one scrutineer, whereas two boxes were used. (6) Shanaghan appointed as poll clerk Richard Sefton previously scrutineer for Luke. (7) And William D. Bush, who previously requested electors not to vote _ for petitioner. (8) While 293 persons received voting papers at Otahuhu, 304 votes were recorded and counted. (9) And said papers issued to voters were not initialled by the returning officer, as required by law. It was also contended that, in issuing voting papers to electors, Shanaghan had not ticked the names on the roll. This non-ticking and initialing having been admitted, an argument was raised as to whether they rendered the election invalid. The Judges declared if this fact were established the result would simply be to make the election void and have it over again, all parties being eligible. Mr Cotter then argued—(l) But as the Returning officer did not comply with the provision of section 30 of the Regulation of Elections Act, 1881, at Otahuhu by ticking «nd initialing the whole of the votes given there were bad.

(2) That if such voters presented were onethird of the number who voted at the whole election, it would be a fair representation of the district to decide in case of omitting such votes, and therefore the whole election was void.

Mr Lusk, in reply, contended there was a special provision in the Act providing for the appointment of poll clerks to preside at the ballot boxes, and it was competent for them to perform ticking and initialing. He characterised the objections as merely formal ones. No such alteration was made in respect of voting at Ot*huhn, and therefore there was no elect ral miscarriage. Besides, if all the votes taken at Otahnhu were strnck out the petitioner wou’i be in a still smaller majority, for there the other candidates got the bulk of 'heir support. The remainder of sitting was occupied by in taking the evidence of Mr Shanaghan, the returning officer. AUCKLAND, March 15. After hearing arguments of counsel. The Chief Justice thought there had been great irregularity. He was not prepared to eay the election was void, but perhaps in connection with other matters it might have the effect to void the election. He would now call on the petitioner to go on with the cise. Mr Cotter said the clerk of works had not yet arrived. On the suggestion of the Chief Justice, the personation case was taken, and a laborer named Sutcliffe was examined by Mr Cotter, with the object of showing that he (Sutcliffe) had voted in respect to the property of which he was notowner. One Alfred Richard Harris had filled in the claim to vote, but witness did not know the contents of it. His Honor said Harris had not considered that ho was liable to ten years’ imprisonment for sending in a claim to vote without written authority. It was manifest that the p»P er had been filled in not by Harris but by the returning officer. After heating further evidence regarding the property in reipmt of which Sutolia® voted, the Court adjourned till to-day.