VALIDITY OF POLL.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5067, 20 December 1926, Page 2

VALIDITY OF POLL.

KEREPEEHI SETTLERS OBJECT.

PETITION BEFORE MAGISTRATE.

At the Magistrate’s Court, Thames, before Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., on Friday last, the validity of the poll held on October 26 last in connection with a proposal to raise ,a loan of £7675 over the Kerepeehi riding special rating area for the formation and metalling of Wfttrau, Kaikahu, and Pekapeka roads, within the Hauraki Plains County, was questioned. The following petition,. signed by settlers in the Kerepeehi riding, was submitted for hearing :—

“Your petitioners say: (a) That many ratepayers in the said Kerepeehi riding special rafting area did /not record a vote at the said poll as they were not aware that, the said poll was being taken on October 26, 1926 ; (b) that no public*notice of intention to borrow the. said sum of £7675, or the purposes of such loan, or the security therefore, or what it was proposed to pay out of.such loan, or of the day upon which such poll would be taken was given prior to the taking o'f sjich poll by the Hauraki Plains County Council or its clerk or any other official thereof, either by publication of placards posted in conspicuous places throughout the district or otherwise, or by means of a newspaper commonly circulating in the district of the Hauraki Plains County or within the limits of the said Kerepeehi riding special rating area ; (c) no voting paper or form of voting paper prescribed by law-' and applicable to such poll and the proposals to be voted upon thereat was used in the conduct of the poll. “By reason of the premises your petitioners say that the said poll was not .taken or conducted in accordance with the principles Prescribed by law; tha.t it was irregular, and that by reason of such irregularity the result of the poll was materially affected, and your petitioners demand an inquiry into the conduct of such poll. Wherefore your petitioners pray that it may be determined that the said poll was void.” The Petition was signed by C. T. B. Smith, D. Shilton, A'. E. Hunter, J. M. Thompson, R. L. Davies,, H. Innis, C. Fawcett, W. Greenway, all of Kerepehi; and A. J. Young, G. Sarjant, G. E. Sarj.ant, and J. R. Hall, of Netherton.

Mr E. J. Clendon appeared for the petitioners and Mr Garland for the, returning officer (Mr E. A. Mahoney) and the Hauraki Plains County Council.

The Magistrate explained at the outset that counsel for both sides had placed before him certain tacts that required looking into before he desired to hear witnesses and facts, were such as he believed would simplify matters and shorten .the proceedings. Certain advertising was necessary in connection with the raising of the loan, and this h,ad been done in the Thames Star, which, it was submitted, did not circulate' in that particular area. There had apparently been no publication off the Statutory notice, as required under the Local Elections and Polls Act. Mr Garland pointed out that section 16 of.the 1926 amended Act did not, apply to the loan proposal. The Bench sacted that as the proposal had -been advertised in September the poll was governed by the 1913 Act.

Mr Clendon contended that the poll had been taken under the wrong Act, which, he contended, was unanswerable. The Local Elections and Polls Act had come into force nearly three weeks before the proceedings were initiated by the council.

Mr Garl&nd explained that as It Was a loan proposal the voting papers were used as required under the Local Bodies Loans Act. Section 10’off the 1913 Act governed the poll, and the provisions of that Act had been com--plied with. The form-of voting paper had been consistent, since the Act was passed in 1908 and rei-enacted in 1913. Section 3 o'f the Local Elections and Polls Act, 1925, mentioned that sub- , ject to the provisions of any Act, the proposals were governed, and it was submitted .that the right form of voting paper had beqn used. •" Mr Clendon contended that there was no provision under the Local Bodies Loans Act 'for the taking of a poll. In conducting a poll under the Local Bodies Loans Act th© form ol voting paper was clearly laid down, but it had not been complied with. The 1926 Act came into force 18 days before the Hauraki Plains County Council commenced its. proceedings, and yet it persisted in taking the poll undqr the 1925 Act. The poll was not advertised in a newspaper circulating in the area, and, secondly, the poll had been taken under the wrong Actin a nutshell, the case rejtqd, on those two points, and the poll, therefore, should be declared null and void. The Magistrate said that he would be pleased if counsel would submit argument in writing, together with any authorities they might wish to quote. The points raised would be carefully looked-into and disposed off. The case was not as easy to Adjudicate as it had at first appeared. When in Hamilton he would avail himseH: of the law reference library there. In the meantime the case would require to be adjourned until the January sit-* ting o’f t,he Court, unless it was found that a decision could be arrived at on the arguments submitted by counsel, in ,which case he would 'forward a written decision as early as possible.