Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Manawatu Herald, 22 September 1894, Page 2

Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

(Before H. AY. Brabant, Esq., S.M.) Friday, 21st , September. ' '"* electiost petition. . ; A petition from Messrs J. R. McMillan, W. Hamer, T. MeCloskey, A. Kerr, B, Spelman, H. Border and H. Bradcoqk, asking for 'an eriquify into the late Borough Election wiaa considered by the Magistrate. Mr McMillan appeared for the petitioners, he asked that the nomination papers be put in and that Mr Osborne be examined as to big „-- signature. "* The names of the. elected candidates were called but only T. : Westwood appeared. i . • A a Thomas F. Gibson being sworn/ \ said I am the Town Clerk an.a 9^ Returning Officer tor the Borough; of Foxton ; he held an election_on. jhir, 7th September for the office of three Councillors ; there were four nomination papers sent in, being Thomas Westwood, George Hughes, Robert Austin and Henry Bradcock ; I did declare the nomination of Henry Bradcock to be informal, and the. - other three duly elected ; (the j Burgess list was produced ;) it con> tains the names of all lour candidates ; (the declaration of the' poll was here put in, the nomination papers were also put in ;) I declared the paper informal as regarded* ' the signature of Edinupd Osborne not being the same as it is r 6n the Burgess Roll ; the signature on the paper is only Edmund Osborne with* out the J. 8., and X therefore eoa> sidered it informal; there, wai a r<i protest made at the time. ! Examined by Mr McMillan— j . Knew Osborrie's ordinary signature,;; and it is the same as that. Q|i tj^e t nomination paper ; ther« is Mo, 6s&s E . J. B. Osborne on the Bolt ' , By 5.M,~1 took the o^eqtioiJi jj& :';; the paper myself, and deotare'd '■t&h informal and then Mr MaMilfefl protested, . :! .. . - , ...,y.t* The S.M. said he could not.-sefe the difference between the other nomination papers and that which Jir Osborne signed. • - ■ iuarr E. Osborne deposed ..tha^^^he signature upon the. .nomination $Sper ofuenry rß^dcecJ^wa^hJg^^^dJMry signature. <".j : "-w-Va.r I Theg Magistrate 'inEiMtid he

would give ilia decision ai & o'clock. On resuming at 2 o'clock the Magistrate said r The facts are that four, candidates ;, were nominated for the election Messrs Austin, Hughes* Westwood and Sradoock, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination of Henry Sradcock as informal on. the ground that the signature "Edmund Osborne " is the sigtmoiit'e §igtied by ode of the persons nominated, where i the name on the Burgess Roll is Edmund E. B. Osborne. The name as. on the Burgess Roll however, Edmuad J» B» Osborne, does appear at the top. o! tbe paper. It was pointed out in the course of this enquiry that the nomination * paper prescribed by the Electoral Act iB9B, e*presßly says that the fietiiiilatdrjj avti ft sigd their full namw with residence and occupation. There is, however, no such provision in the Regulation of Local Elections Act, or in the schedule prescribing the nomination paper, The nomination papet in the latter Act however* prdvides a blank at the top of it (which is not in the paper tjnfidr the MeCt&riil Act, 1893) for the names o! tiie ndmifiattfi's", wnich I think should be filled up with the names as they appear on the Burgess Roll, as has been done in the oase of . all the nomination papers presented at this election, including the one refused by the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer did not however hold that it was necessary to sign the paper with a full name, but that it was necessary to sign full, initials, It was pointed out that in some other of the nomination papers the signatures do not agree with the name as on the roll, particularly in that of Thos. Westwood, where the signatures are T. P. Williams instead of Thomas Phillipps Williams, Fred. E. Jenks, instead of Frederick E. Jenks, and Thos. W&stwood instead of Thomas Wostwood. It certainly seems to me quite in- j consistent that Mr Bradcock's paper should have been rejected, and Thos. Westwood's accepted. It further appears from tbe cvi» dence that no objection was taken to the paper, but the Returning Officer took the objection himself. If the nomination papers were to be. so closely scrutinized by the Returning Officer there are defects in them all as it appears to me ; but I think that the principle involved is that the election should be a fair one ; the Returning Officer had, he admits, no reason to doubt that the signature Edmund Osborne was the signature of the person whose name is on the roll was at the top of the paper — on the contrary he admits he actually/ knew his signature ; Section 11 of the Regulation of Local Elections Act merely says that the papers are to be signed by ""the two electors and I do not think that the Returning Officer was right in insisting on a formality, which the -ip^^ms- not 'expressly require and. which insertion Would evidently defeat 'the 1 fairness of the election; as to the second ground in the petition, ■: that other irregularities occurred, it appears that the name of George Hughes, a candidate elected was not on the Burgess Roll at all. It appears to me therefore on enquiry under section 48 of the Regulation of Local Elections Aot that in the eleotion petitioned against, the name of Henry Bradcook was omitted from the polling papers and that a further irregularity occurred in the proceedings which would defeat the fairness of the election. I therefore declare the eleotion void. Costs 62a, to be paid in equal parts by the lour candidates. INTERPLEADER CASE. Harriet E. Short v. McMillan, Rhodes & Co. Interpleader summons. Mr Innes appeared for Mrs Short. Mr Bay appeared for McMillan, Rhodes & Go. Mr Innes moved a preliminary objection that the Court had no jurisdiction. Mrs Short had been made a plaintiff against her oonsent, and there; were no proceedings before the Court which could be taken cognisance of. Me Ray, in replying to the statemen^ that the plaintiff had been made one against her will, referred to Rule 61, and to Section 108 of the Magistrate's Aot. Rule 51 states mode of proceedure, and referred also totfiato 52. Mr Ray placed his case upon Rule 62. The B.M. said it seemed he could never force the plaintiff to carry on the case in its present form, as it was possible for a plaintiff to disQontmue at any time in a case. Mr Bay contended that under the Rules though it was impossible to make a plaintiff continue an action, the case, could be decided, and a title given to flip goods in dispute. The S.M. said he felt confident ihafc t h& had no power to force a plaintiff to continue the action. The S.M., in answer to Mr Ray, said he Would take time to consider in what manner the action should be