RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Inangahua Times, Volume III, Issue 62, 10 January 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Monday, January 7th, 1877. [Before Editabd Shaw, Esq., R.M.] PETITION TJNDBB THE " LOCAL ELECTIONS ACT, 1876." The Resident Magistrate held a special sitting of the Cpurt to<day, for the purpose of hearing the petition filed by Louis Davies against the return of Timothy Gallagher for the Riding of Antonios. Mr Pitt appeared to support the petition, and Mr Gallagher conducted the defence in person.' , The petition having been read over by tbeCjerk, ' • • ' Mr Pitt proceeded to open the oase for the petitioner. He said thaij the petition had been lodged in accordance with the provisions of the "Counties Act," and the '• Local Elections Act," and contained several allegations. The first allegation set forth that the election was void upon the ground that the lJeturning o%er did not give fourteen clear days' notice of the election, as required by law, the formal notice of the nomination of candidates having been published on the 9lh of December, instead of on the day previous, as was necessary to comply with the Act. The second allegation was that insufficient notice otthe pollingplaces was given, the latter^ flowing as a matter of course from the first allegation. Thirdly, that the polling-places were rot kept open during the prescribed hours on the day of the election. Assuming that the election was not void upon any of the foregoing grounds, he would contend that the election was bad npon the following grounds :—Tlia| James Bergin, one of the persons signing the .nomination paper of Timothy Gallagher, was not entitled to sign the same, not being an elector,. That a person named James Burke voted for Timothy Gallagher by fraudulently im-* personating another person, named, John Townly, with the privity and consent of Timothy Gallagher. And finally, that on* or more persons voted at the election, not being so entitled. He would ask the permission of the Court to amend what appeared to be a clerical error in the drafting of the petition. Ho desired to alter the name of one of the persons mentioned in the petition from " James Burke " to Edmund Butler. Mr Gallagher would strongly oppose any such amendment, as it would throw him off his «uard. He was prepared to oppose the petition as ifc stood, and if the amendment was made he would have no opportunity of calling rebutting evideaee.

Mr Pitt would not press the applica- j tion if it was calculated to embarrass the ! other side. ' His Worship would allow the amendment, but if be saw afterwards that it embarrassed the defendant he would strike it out. Mr Gallagher suggested as a means of shortening the proceedings that the ruling of the Court should be taken upon the I first allegation of the petition, and the court finding that the notice of the Returning Officer was insufficient, it would not be necessary to proceed with the other ! grounds. The Magistrate said that the allegations would require to be taken singly. It appeared to him that it Was immaterial bow the points were taken. The petitioner having been re|iig|l§: for another Biding and haying takeWjil seat in the Council for that Biding if '^ras not competent for him to ask the Cmrt to declare him elected for another Hiding. Mr Pitt was not clear upon the point, but be thought that if the Court ruled that Mr Gallagher's election w&s void, the petitioner' could then elect to sit for either ltiding. His Worship entertained a different view. The petitioner having already made his election and taken his eeat in accordance therewith, he was bound by his own act. Mr Pitt thought the question hardly arose. His Worship understood it to arise upon the petition, though he was free to admit that be did not quite see the aim of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks to upset a part of the election in order that he may be declared elected, and in the event of failing in that he asks the Court to declare the whole election void. Mr Pitt said ifc was the ordinary from of such petitions. His Worship said that it differed in the respect that here the petitioner had already taken his seat, and could not therefore acquire another. He was, in short, seeking for something which he could not possibly obtain. It was agreed that the hearing should be upon the two first grounds of the petition and the case proceeded. Samuel M,eggitt Mackley : I reside at Waipuna, on the Grey Kiver, and was Eeturning Officer of ftiding of Antonios, in the County of $nangahun. I produce my appointment under the hand of the Under-Secretary, G. S. Cooper, Esq. I gave public notice of the election in the Inangahtja Times of the 11 tb December, and on the 9th of the same month had printed placards posted in conspicuous places at .Antonios. J received notice of my appointment by telegram, at 6 p.m., on the 7th December. The first notice of the nomination and election was given by me by printed placards, on the 9ih December. On the Bth December, after receiving notice of my appointment, I had to proceed to Ahaura to obtain copies of the "Counties Act," and the " JiOcal Elections Act," to ascertain my duties. I had the placards posted on the same day that they Were printed. The nomination of candidates took plaoe on the 18th De« cember, and the number of nominations received was in excess of the vacancies to be filled. I forwarded notice of the norn« matrons to the Times, aud it appeared in due form. Am not aware that I had an opportunity of publishing the nom ; na tions a day sooner in the Herald. Do not know anybody of the name of Bayliss. Jteco'lect some person calling on me and as|ing for an order for printing ballot papers, but I declined. I sent the advertisements to the Inangahua Times because I inquired and was informed that that paper was the most largely circulated in the county. The poll was takent at Johnston's store, and at O'Malieys, at the Grey Junction. I was at the polling* booth at the latter place. George Ellis acted as deputy at Antonios. The poll opened at 9 a.m: and closed at 6 o'clock. The booth was not open all the time. It Was closed for about three quarters of an hour at mid-day. Only one voter polled from 9to 12 o'clock. And 2 hours after the poll was re»opened 2 voters polled. Before closing the poll at mid day 1 posted a notice; I used all possible diligence in the discharge of my , duties. Ti*e time allowed by the Government was insufficient. Nothing was done at the election which in my opinion tended to defeat its fairness. George Eeece : I was scrutineer at Antonips for Mr Daviei?. Tb© poll was closed 'for an hour between 12. and 1 o'clock,. \ Cross-examined— Have bet on the re* j suit of this petition. Have bet that Mr Gallagher will he unseated. Mr Pitt having addressed the Court and Mr Gallagher having' replied, the case closed. Edward Butler, the witness who waa charpd in the petition with personation, was called but failed to appear, Louis D»vies was examined and, proved havmg served the witness with a subpoena at 5 o'clock on Friday morning, at his hut at Black water, and also handed the witness £1 as expenses. His Worship said that the charge was of too serious a nature to overlook, a criminal warrant would therefore issue against Butler and the petitioner would be required to assume the responsibility of his prosecution. Mr Gallagher wished to gire evidence on the matter, particularly as be had been

accused of privity of the alleged persona tion. His Worship paid that it was unnecessary. P/ivity of personation was not tn offence under the Act, but if Mr Gallagher wished to make a personal explanation of the matter* he would be allowed to do so at the future hearing. With respect to the petition his Worship said that Upon the two first grounds there could not be a shadow of doubt the election was void. The Act was explicit as to the interval of five days be* tween the nomination and polling, and it was equally clear that in the present case only four days had elapsed. He wished to give expression to the opinion that in this matter the Returning Officer was not in the least to blame. He had acted in the face of great difficulties, owing to the remoeness of the Hiding. He (the Magistrate) spoke personally and on behalf of the whole of the returning officers of the county when he said that it was only with the greatest difficulty that the duties had been performed, and this in consequence of the too short notice given by the Government, which rendered almost impossible to comply with the Act. He was not aware that any particular form of notice was requisite of the situation of the polling booths, and as the Returning officer had given the earliest possible notice in the paper represented as having the largest circulation, he had done all that was required of him. As to the closjng of the polling booth within the prescribed, hours that of itself was sufficient to invalidate the election. He therefore declared the whole election to be void, and an extraordinary vacancy to exist in respect to the Hiding of Antonios, Mr Gallagher having assumed the responsibility of the defence, had thereby made himself liable for costs, which were assessed at £19 10*.