PLAINS LOAN POLL.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4391, 17 March 1922, Page 2

PLAINS LOAN POLL.

COURT OF INQUIRY. THE PETITION DISMISSED. An inquiry into the Hauraki Plains County Council loan poll, for £33,000, held on January 18, 1922, and which was declared ,by the poll clerk (Mr to be carried by onefifth of a vote, was held yesterday. The inquiry had been previously adjourned. Mr E. J. Clendon (Thames), and with him Mr E. L. Walton (Ngatea), appeared for the Council, and Mr J. Bryan, and with him Mr J. Garland, appeared for the petitioners. Mr Clendon pointed out that the notices in reference to the poll were given , due publicity in the “Hauraki Plains Gazette,” which, was the local paper for the Hauraki Plains. From February 8 to the 22irl gave the required 14 days in which to file an objection to the poll. If the petition was not presented by February 22, it was out of time, and the duty of the Court was to dismiss the case. Mr Bryan said the poll had been lost on the first count, but on the recount had been declared carried by one-fifth of a vote. No member oil the Council, Mr Bryan contended (section 5, •subssec.tion 3, Local Authorities Polls Act), had a right to have anything to do with the poll. The Act stipulate! that the poll must be conducted by a competent and disinterested person, who was specifically instructed to make the declaration. In the 1913 the chairman of a local body should the chairman of a local boddy should have no part whatever in the poll proceedings. Mr Walton, in answer to the magistrate, said the notice appeared in the Government "Gazette” on February 16. Mr Garland contended that the proper declaration of the .poll by the poll clerk, in terms of the governing Act, had never been made., A : notice had been published, but that did not satisfy legal requirements. Mr Garland said the poll had been held under the Loans Act, and was subject to the Local P-odies Elections and Polls Act. This latter Act gov-, erned the conduct of the poll, and required a. returning officer. Under the former Act the chair,man must make the declaration of the poll, and under the latter the poll clerk. The decaration was made by the chairman, and not by the poll clerk. In respect to publication, the Act required publication in the Government “Gazette,” and in some local newspaper commonly circulating in the district. The tijne limit for objection was 14 days after ’is appearance in the paper in which it appearel latest; in this case it appeared latest in the Government “Gazette.”

Mr Clendon characterised as ridiculous “the contention of Mr Bryan that two notices should be published, one by the chairman and- the other by, the poll clerk. The publication in s the Government “Gazette” was merely the official record), but that in the newspaper was tlie notification to the people. Practically none of the ratepayers saw the Government publication. Mr Walton said the question had resolved itself in one of which Act governed the poll. The Elections Act was primarily to govern elections of members, to ensure that candidates or friends should not have anything to do with the election.. Regarding the Loans Act. it was this which was intended to govern polls ; a perusal of its sections proved this interpretation. The chairman of the Council, Wiho was the administrative head, was the person to make the declaration. There was no question o e members of a council taking part at all. The notice published explicitly "declared” the result of the poll. The chairman was the perso?i the Act looked to for tlie proper carrying, out of the procedure ; it was the chairman who was liable should any irregularity occur; it was), therefore, al] nonsense to .say that the chairman did not count in these matters. Mr Walton submitted that in view of his liability withih the Act, the chairman should sign the declaration. •

The magistrate said' the poll was taken under the ‘provisions of the Local Bodies Loans and Polls Act, 1913.. A notice or declaration of the result of the poll was published in the “Hauraki Plains Gazette” on February 8, signed by the chairman. This notice contained the word “declare” —declared the result of the poll, which procedure was quite in accordance with the requirements of the Act 1 . Tbe point raised was as to whether or not the petitioners had lodged their objection within the specified time—l 4! days from the date of the publication of the declaration.' The argument by Mr Bryan that the notice was invalid inasmuch, as' it was signed by the chairman and not by the clerk (in accordance with, the Local Bodies’ Elections Act) was very ingenious but fallacious.- Once the notice appeared in a local newspaper, from which source the public got their first public official intimation, all subsequent proceedings must conform to the law in respect to time limit. The time for protest started from the date of publication' in the local and- the petitioners were a day late,, in lodging their objection. He was Quite certain that he had. therefore, no jurisdicton to hear the case, which was therefore dismissed. Costs amounting to nine guineas were allowed. ■