THE WESTLAND PETITION

Hokitika Guardian, 11 March 1926, Page 1

THE WESTLAND PETITION

Y K:-TFit I> A Y S COXt'LU 01N(I PROCEEDINGS. GREYM.OUTTL -March lU. When the Flection Court resumed the Court proceeded to state the decisions they had come to. Mr Justice Stringer, alter outlining the ease, said that the petitioner’s main ground was that a large number of persons won' illegally on the roll. T.ie respondent set up a recriminatory on similar grounds. A person’s absence Iron: a district did not disqualify him. lie must he qualified and registered in another district. D a person travelled about the country, although he

could not I c said to have a lieu residenoe, then as he never become qualified for registration in another district, lie did not. lose his original qualifications. and could east his vote in the district in which lie was registered, nothwithstniiding his absent' from Hint district on the date of the election. Consequently, it was not sufficient to prove merely that electors had been absent from the district lor three months. It must be proved that they actually resided in another district for three mouths before the closing of the roll. As the presumption should he in favour of tlic validity n‘ all totes east, lhe onus of proof lay upon the challenging side. Where il was proved merely that an elector went away on holiday or for a temporary visit, and

-.till retained the intention of returning. even though he resided in another visit for three months or il there was no proof that he did liol reside in another district for inreo months lit—--1,,,.,, (he roll closed, then the Court, held that, the onus of proof had not l.ocn discharged. Notwithstanding that an elector had boon in another district for thro months, the onus of proof was not discharged if it could he shown that he returned home. Where an elector had a permanent home in another eleelorate or a hut or lent, hut worked in this distinct. Hint elector could claim that lie resided in this district. With reference to other cases concerning length ol residence in the districi. the Court was of opinion that if it were proved that a person had a right to he enrolled, the mode in which he got on Hie roll was a matter of procedure only. If n person were qualified he should, ha allowed to vote, but unqunhlied per.-oils cl Ihe roll should not bo all owed to oil". H. a the time of the olaelion, a voter was otherwise duly qualified to vote, tbo procedure hv which his name was placed on the roll was immaterial. Regarding the contention of I'espomh id's counsel, that voting papers marked with a. cross opposite a candidate - name he treated as invalid, the Court lad come to the eouelu-ion that il could not uphold tin’s contention. I' must he assumed I hat a person went to (he poll with the iiiioniioii ot recording u valid vole. Seeing that the ..lacing of a cross again-i ilm name oi a candidate had lor many year, past he el (lie pres rihed method at municipal elections in New Zealand it was 111 the highest degree improbable that lids method should he used as indie.iling a desire to vote lor a candidate. Put the reverse. In the opinion of the very careful, capable and experienced Returning Ofiieer for Westland, such votes were valid, and Ihe Court saw no reason for disturbing ids decision. The same principle had been applied in Ktiglish eases. The mere fact that a voter applied for a voting paper was sutn.-icii !.. indicate bis intention to vole. Those were the principles which ijv Court intended In npplv t° iho

The f'ourl then proceeded I” outline the decisions arrived at. as published in yesterday's is-me. and at Ilm conclusion i 1,.; Court retired in consider the votes allowed or struck off. When Hie Court resumed at p.m. Ilu re was a large allendaie-e ol the public. ITis 1 |imoili' Justice Stringer brief! x" announced the result ol their deliberations, lie said the Court had carefully readjusted ll'.e figures in I'lte light of the determination mentioned earlier in the day and the icstilt which had been carefully cheeked h\ the Reluming Ofiieer was: SFDD ON H 75 O’RRfF.N HG3 .Majority for Seihlou .. 12 In terms of the Art Mr Seddon was therefore duly elected, and Ihe Court would certify accordingly as required hy the Act. Cost- were allowed In respondent on the highest scale as for a £5Ol claim, witnesses' expenses and disbursements Io he fixed by the Registrar, (he same procedure being followed as in the Hawke's Bay and Wellington eases. The Court agreed to indemnify witnesses against possible subsequent proceedings. alter Mr Murdoch pointed out that certain witnesses who had answered questions fully and clearly should not he liable in prosecution for so doing. The Court also agreed to make a, similar order with re..-.to petitioner's uTtnesses.