REVISION OF ELECTORAL ROLL.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 123, 27 June 1868, Page 5

REVISION OF ELECTORAL ROLL.

A Coukt for the Revision of tho Electoral Roll for the district of Wairau was held in the Provincial Hall on Tuesday lust, before H. Turton, Esq., the Revising Officer. Mr. John Godfrey, of Picton, who had objected to a large number of persons, was present to sustain them; and Mr. Nelson appeared on behalf of several claimants. The names of W. Allinson, T. Askew, A. "W. Barnett, F. Boardman, W. Broughan, and Y. Bunkell, were called and did not answer, and were expunged. Alfred Mortimer Burton, Renwicktown, proved. that }ie was the claimant whose name appeared as a freeholder. Mr. Godfrey admitted that he was mistaken in the name. ; The. claim was retained on the roll, and on the application of claimant Mr. Godfrey was called ( on to pay 10s. costs. Nicholas Carney and S. Carter were expunged. . v , . , :..; * Dakin was retained; the published list objections contained the name of Daikee.in-error*;. Mr. Robinson therefore urged that the objection was inyalid, .and claim jyas tdlowed,;.;.j Johp Emersqn., Jn this ease Mr, Nelson .appeared for the claimant,, but the objection Was withdrawn by Mr. Godfrey, and the claim allowed. • . .. !

. / . The following were expunged-John Fitzgerald,, (duplicate, claim); S. G. Hall; H. Hill, (dead)T. M. Humffreys; H, Leajy, . (duplicate claijn),; J, M'Kinley ; B„ Mncpherson; - Morse ; T. Heal ; t T. (in respect , of one claim) y .s[aoph; 6j , r.,-, v i •/ William M‘Donald's..claim was amended on .the‘ representation of Mr. John T.; Hohingon. li W. M ‘Hutcheson .fL ; Jdr- Hohinson stated .thai

-t_tho- claim was-tohia knowledge perfectly : Nelspn considered that many of these' objections were frivolous and vexatious,., made only .for the-purpose of reducingihe list by a.fluke in the absence of .■-Mr* Godfrey such ir.em.arXs ; should be allowed. . Subsequently Mr. .Mbrley, having been sent for, proved that, the-claim, was a good one, but tbe residence, was The claim was allowed,, andVMr*. Nelson, asked; for costa,. but; ,as the claim bad been amended they were not allowed. , ... ‘;T. feedw9od. 7 Mr. Nelson’appeared in this case* but Mr. Godfrey ’ showed , that it was an errdf in the roll—the word Awatere standing for Omaka. The claim was therefore disallowed.

Mr. Nelson wished to poiut out that many of these objections were caused by want of care and attention on the part of the registration officer. Henry Silvius. This claim was amended at the instance of Mr. John T. Robinson.

John Taylor was represented by Mr. Nelson, who called Mr. Joseph Taylor, who stated that his sons held the, house' claimed for among them. In reply to Mr. Godfrey, he said he was the freeholder of the section, but his sons worked on it, but did not sleep there. Mr. Nelson was sure they resided there, as they worked at least 12 hours out of the 24. John Taylor said he lived on Section 32, Blenheim, carrying on business there, hut boarded with his father. J|f- r - Nelson contended lie had a right to a vote for his place of business. The Revising Officer did not agree with this opinion, and ordered the pame. s to be , expunged. Mr. Godfrey claimed,costs in this -case,' a's like the two following, it was a frivolous and vexatious claim.—Costs refused.

. Joseph Taylor,! junior, expunged. Thomas (Taylor. In this case the published objections differed,from the. written one, the objections,, being: on the same ground as the two former; ibut fhe printed list said the property was not sufficiently described for identification.— Mr. Godfrey held that he -was.: not responsible for the errors in the printed list, but by his written objection. The Court held the claim to be bad on the same grounds as the last two cases. "... - ;

Y. C; Tennimoro. la this case the objection was that he was not the freeholder. The Court enquired whether Mr. Nelson was engaged by the claimant.' Mr. Nelson said he appeared on behalf of the public generally. He considered the proceedings exceedingly ill-conducted, and entered his protest by leaving the Court. Mr. John T. Eobinson stated. he .was. well aware that the claimant was the freeholder in this case, and in reply to Mr. Godfrey, contended that his knowledge should stand against Mr. Godfrey’s assertion. Claim allowed. J. B. Wemyss. Mr. Godfrey objected that, the name appeared twice-, and that for the first he had no right to a household qualification at the place stated. The Eegistration Officer,, being in Court, stated that the second claim was for the place where the claimant now resided, while the other was the old claim, which it was the duty of the Eevising Officer to erase.—Expunged accordingly.

James White’s claim was shown to be in duplicate, and ono was erased.

Mr. Nelson said that several of these errors arose from the blunders of the printer of the paper in which they were published, [the iVews.] , / Mr. Godfrey said ho would revise the whole roll if sent to him. (Laughter.) W. H. Eyes, in respect of claims 1,2, and 5 ; E. Williams, claims 1 and 3 ; H.D. Williams, claims 1,2, and 3; George Williams; and Walter Wright were expunged, > Continual interruptions took place, and protests made by persons present,. at the imperfect way in which the roll appeared as printed. Thirty-seven objections had been made, of which 30 were maintained and 7 remained upon the roll.