ELECTION PETITIONS COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2478, 16 March 1882, Page 3

ELECTION PETITIONS COURT.

fPBEBB ASSOCIATION TELBGBAM.J

AUCKLAND, March 15. The Franklin election petition was resumed to-day. Alf. Biohard Harris, farmer, Bast Tamaki, farmer, and brother of the sitting member, was the first witness called. He admitted ha had signed Sutcliffe's application to be registered as the attesting witness, and he had also appended Sutcliffe’s name, at the latter’s request. The writihg took place ia witness’s bouse. Sutcliffe touched the pen while the name was signed. This was in October. He hod several other forms filled up and sent to the returning officer. Crossexamined—He forgot what became of this application, and at Sutcliffe’s request wrote and forwarded another, so as to make sure of the name being registered. The application produced was, he believed, the first one which was written in his own house. William Shanaghan, registrar of electors, and returning officer of Brooklyn North, deposed as to the receipt of the application on 10th November, 1881. Earlier in the year he found the man was entitled to vote, and entered his name upon a list prepared 1 for entry on the roll by striking out the name 1 John Sutcliffe, and writing Thomas James Sutcliffe’s name over it, lower down altering the name Thos. Sutcliffe (the father who 1 was dead) to John Sutcliffe. All this was done to save writing. The name was placed upon the official roll prior to October 15th. 1 He did not find out the printer’s error until he saw the allegation in the election petition, and therefore the correction was not made till after the day of polling. The mistake in Dorell’s case was collected | at same time. The claim produced was for residential qualification, but the claimant was already on the roll as a freeholder.—Mr Cotter wanted to show that the Betnrning Officer did not give notice of non-insertion of the name with the residential qualification, and consequently Sutcliffe voted in respect of rating qualification, but the Judges held this could not be relevant. However improperly the name got on the roll, being on, the person could not be prevented from voting, therefore, although Sutcliffe’s action looked suspicions, yet, after Shanaghan’s evidence, the charge of personation against him could not be sustained. There was no need for Mr Lusk to adduce evidence in reply. Charge of intimidation was then proceeded with.— Major Campbell, Clerk to the House of Bapresentatives, was sworn, and produced a packet containing the voting papers for the election for Franklyn North, The packet was unsealed, and the voting paper produced, which the petitioner claimed had been wrongly rejected because of the writing of the name across the face of it. —Mr Lusk was then heard in support of the Beturning Officer’s action in rejecting this vote! He contended that the writing of the name upon the face of the paper was a violation of the secrecy of the ballot and of the Act, which prescribed that the voting should be secretly done.—The Chief Justice did not think it necessary to call upon Mr Cotter to reply. The Act must be construed as others were. As it did not expressly prohibit the writing of the name across the voting paper doing that constituted no offence. He took it for granted the object of the Act was to to provide for the secrecy of the ballot, but it did not seek to prevent an elector, if be chose, to make known how he had voted. The paper under notice consequently should have been received.—Mr Justice Gillies said he entirely agreed with what the Chief Justice had said. It was not for them to impose a penalty for some supposed breach of the Act for which no penalty was provided. He was quite of opinion the writing of the name across the voting paper did not invalidate the vote, therefore it would be allowed, and would count as an additional vote for Mr Buckland.—Mr Lusk then claimed that two voting papers should be counted which had been disallowed at Papakura, because no names on them had been cancelled, but only a cross placed at the side of those names on the paper, indicating, it was contended, cancellation of such names on each paper. It was ar fe ued that this was a practice of many people in England, and that at any rate where the voter’s intention was clear the vote should not be refused. In this case only one person could be voted for, and the attaching of a cross to three names on each paper meant that the fourth name was the one for which the vote was recorded. A third voting paper was then produced, in which the Christian names of three candidates were soared out in pencil and the surnames left untouched. The name of the fourth candidate was not marked in any way. This vote had also been disallowed, and Mr Lusk now claimed to have it counted.—The Chief Justice, in calling upon Mr Cotter to reply, said be and Justice Gillies were satisfied that the two papers having crosses at the side of certain names were invalid, and therefore the argument could be confined to the case of the third paper. Mr Cotter then replied, contending that the failure to mark out the surnames as well as the Christian names rendered the paper invalid. The Judges ruled in favor of Mr Lusk, and an additional vote was counted for Mr Harris. AUCKLAND, March 16. The intimidation oases were next considered, the charges being contained in clauses 3 and 3 of the petition, and’ are to the effect that the ;Deputy Returning Officer at Howiok refused to give William Dovell a voting paper without attaching to it conditions which he was not authorised by law to do, and that Eobt. Hattaway had used intimidation to Dovell, and prevented him voting. Dovell’a evidence was to the effect that he had been prevented from voting by the threats of Hattaway and others to get his (Dovell’s) master into trouble, and by the Beturning Officer saying—“ You can vote if you like, but I will cast it aside, and it will not count." He had only been six weeks in the place prior to the election.—John Smith, Deputy Beturning Officer, deposed that ho had been requested by Hattaway to ask Dovell if he had been resident in the district six months. Dovell said, “ No.” Witness did not refuse Dovell a voting paper, but told him if he voted he would mark the “illegal.”—Bobert Andrews deposed to having heard Hattaway tell Dovell he was liable to a penalty of £4O if he voted. —Hattaway, in h;» evidence, admitted having told the Beturning Officer that Dovell was not legally entitled to vote. — This concluded the intimidation case. The Bench decided to hear the other case before listening to the arguments of counsel.—The other cases with reference to the appointment of a poll clerk contained in clauses 7,8, and 9 were then proceeded with. Shanaughan, the Beturning Officer, gave evidence on the matter, after which the Court adjourned till this morning, the locale being changed to Otahuhu. Later. The North Franklyn election has been declared void in consequence of the intimidation practised by Hattaway.