ELECTION PETITIONS COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2479, 17 March 1882, Page 3

ELECTION PETITIONS COURT.

IPBBSS MIOOIATIOH THLESBAK.] AUCKLAND, March 16.

The intimidation cases were next considered, the charges being contained in clauses 2 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 Bobt. Hattaway had used intimidation to Dovell, and prevented him voting. Dovell’s evidence was to the effect that ho had been prevented from voting by the threats of Hattaway and other* to get his (Dnvell’e) master into trouble, and by the Returning 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.—Jchn Smith, Deputy Returning Officer, deposed that he had been requested by Hattaway to ask Dovell it he had been resident in the district six months. Dovell said, 11 No." Witness did not refuse Dovell a voting paper, but told him if he voted he would mark the paper “illegal,”—Robert Andrews deposed to having heard Hattaway tell Dovell he was liable to a penalty of £4O it he voted. —Hattaway, in his evidence, admitted having told the Returning 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. Shanaghan, the Returning Officer, gave evidence on the matter, after which the Court adjourned till this morning, the locale being changed to Otahnhu.

In giving judgment, the Chief Justice said that they had come to the conclusion that Dovell had been prevented from voting by the conduct of Hattaway and by the Returning Officer. There was an intention to object to Dovell’s voting, because it was believed that his name had been improperly placed on the roll. It was qnite clear from the evidence that it was intended to object to Divell, because it was known that he would vote for Backland. After further remarks his Honor said that the result was that they thought that Hattaway’a vote recorded for the respondent ehonld be disallowed, but they did not think that the vote could be given to the petitioner. It waa hard to say how the Returning Officer would have voted had there been a tie, and, therefore, they thought that the election should be declared void. His Honor continued—ln giving this decision, we must make some observations with regard to the mode in which the election was conducted at Otahnho, We think it plainly was not in accordance with the Act. We are not satisfied it was the dnty of the Returning Officer to inform the candidates he intended to have separate boxer, bat it is clear that if he bad them they should be made under his own care and inspection. The election as conducted here is calculated to produce doubt and confusion. The result is that six votes were not ticked, and they might be bad ones. I do not think it necessary to rest the decision on this point, but wish to state that even on that ground it does not appear quite clear what tbe effects would be span the election. We rest our cession upon the intimidation to Hattaway, and the judgment jn the W akp - n bi caje supports the view we have taken. Justice Gillies concurred in what the Chief Justice had just stated. He considered the principle adopted in tbe Wakanni case applied to this, inasmuch as the maiority of the successful candidate was too small. If there had been a majority of ten or twenty votes there would be no ground for disallowing the election, but where the result was narrowed down to one vote, and that one prevented, from being given, it was sufficient to declare the election void. He dwelt even stronger than tho Chief Justice about the non-ticked slips for which the voting papers were issued. It seemed to him that when the conduct of an election was such as to render uncertain whets er six votes were properly given or not, and without an opportunity being allowed to the candidates of testing their validity, the election should be void. It was not necessary to deal with that, however. He simply concurred with the Chief Justice. The election was void on other grounds. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs in all case, except Mr Hattaway's. No costs were allowed either for or against the Returning Officer. Hattaway was granted a certificate of indemnity from prosecution for giving evidence.