THE PAROA ELECTION

Kumara Times, Issue 2579, 10 December 1884, Page 2

THE PAROA ELECTION

MR. A. R. GUINNESS UNSEATED. At the Resident Magistrate's Court, Greytnouth, ou Monday, before H. A. Stratford, Esq., R.M., at 11 a.m., an action was brought under the " Regulation of Local Elections Act. 1876," in respect to the Paroa election, to upset the election of Mr A. R. Guinness as a member of the Grey County Council.

Mefsrs Jones and Menteath appeared for the petitioners, Mr Joseph Kilgour and two others.

Messrs Warner and Guinness appeared on beha'f of the Returning Officer and the successful candidate.

Mr Warner said that before the learned counsel for the petitioners entered on the merits of the case, he had certain preliminary objections to raise. He contended that the Court had no jurisdiction, that the declaration was not in proper form, aud that tho Court had no power to amend it. Mr Warner also raised several technical objections, on all of which he argued very acutely, amongst which was the omission of the words " Regulation of" in describing the Regulation of Local Act, 1876.

Mr Jones combatted every objection raised in detail, and

Mr Warner reviewed the chief points of his argument, urging in conclusion that the determination come to by the Court should be final and conclusive.

The Court then adjourned for an hour.

His Worship considered he had the power to allow clerical mistakes to he amended, though in a general sense he was bound to administer the Act as he found it. He doubted whether the allegations set forth in the petition could be amended after 14 days. The subject of the petition must remain unaltered as set forth ; but the clerical error—the omission of the words "The Regulations of" he would allow to be amended. After referring to some of the other minor objections taken, he held that the case was sufficiently before the Court to justify the petitioners in being allowed to go on with their case.

On resuming, at 2 p.m., several witnesses were examined, and evidence taken, which, with reviews, lasted till nearly seven o'clock in the evening. His Worship said he would give his best attention to the case that evening while it was still fresh in his mind, and give his ' decision on the following morning at a quarter to ten o'clock. He accordingly delivered judgment yesterday, as follows :—"I wish to express my sincere thanks to counsel on. both sides for the great trouble they have taken to fairly place the .subject matter before me. I have taken great interest in their arguments, and carefully considered them while I read the several sections of the Acts quoted. I agree that it is indeed a very difficult matter to decide whether section 41, Counties Act Amendment Act, 1882, should be read in connection with, or be isolated from, preceding sections quoted ; and, if isolated, virtually repealing these repugnant to it. Being in doubt, it remains for me to g've the section a construction most liberal to the extension of franchise. Had the law stood as left by the Counties Act, 1576, there could, I think, be no question but that County electors alono could vote, and that no person was a County elector whoße name did not appear on the electoral roll of a riding. But section 41 of the Counties Act (1876) Amendment Act, 18S2, isolated as I now put it—with considerable diffidence—provides that every holder of a miner's right shall be entitled to vote for the election of a councillor for the riding in which he resides. And having once decided that it is not to be read in connection with any preceding section of the original Act (1876), I am bound to admit there is no doubtful expression in itself, and that therefore the holder of a miner's right who is not an alien, nor coram" under the prohibitory proviso in the last three lines of the section, is entitled to vote at an election of councillors for the riding- in which he resides. The strongest; ground for arriving at the conclusion that the Legislature intended to grant this privilege to the miners is found by reference to the Counties Act. Amendment Act, 1883, viz—that paragraph 10 of section 41 of the Counties Act, 1876, is omitted from section 10 of the Amendment Act, 1883, the latter being virtually a re-enactment of section 41, but omitting the requirement of enrolment as an iucideut to the right to vote. I therfore conclude that section 41 of the Act of 1882 supplied the omission of paragraph (f) and that such was the reason for tin; omission from the Amendment Act, of 1883. The iillegmi.,.! set forth m jyaragrapb, 7 ol tito jjetiUou has beeu

proved, that there have been irregularities that tended to defeat the fairness of the election. It was unfair of Eliza Chipchase to vote at the same election twice over, the one person under two names, and both her votes should be struck out. William Biamwell waa improperly refused by the Returning Officer because he was an enrolled elector, and in that capacity applied to vote. William Chapman and Antonio Rose, holders of miners' rights, were refused on the one ground only (without any questions), that as holders of miners' rights they were not entitled to vote. In accordance with my interpretation of the Act they were improperly refused- but in justice to the several returning officers, I should add that I believe these officers acted Avith honest intent. Such being my decision, I have to declare the whole election void, with costs (apportioned as follows) agaiust the returning efficer, amounting in all for counsel, witnesses, and costs of Court, to £8 45." The second petition was withdrawn.

Mr Guinness intimated that he would apply to the Supreme Court, Christchurch, for a prohibition order.