RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 10, 11 January 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before L. Broad, Esq., R.M.] ,'-A Court was held to-day to enquire into certain petitions lodged relative to the late election for tjhe Motueka Riding of the Waimea! County Council. The first of these was. to the effect that Joshua Bird was not legally -lected:j_ppn the following grounds :— (I) That irregularities occurred in the election. (2) That the persons who signed the nomination paper of Joshua Bird were not entitled to sign, one not having paid his rate, and the other not being on the rate list, or .possessing any other qualification under the Act. (3.) That a considerable number of persons voted who .were not entitled to vote. (4) That protests were duly handed in to the Returning Officer . atid deputy Returning Officers previous to and on the morning of the polling, but by them ignored. There were also two other petitions, praying that the election might be declared void. The grounds taken by the first were, f1) That the nominators of both William White and Joshua Bird were not entitled to vote at a Road Board election: (2) That neither of the said candidates were, at the time of the nomination papers being signed, entitled to ; vote at a Road Board election. (3) That the ! Returning Officer did not give notice of the time when the election would be held aa required by law. (4) That persons were perimitted to vote who were not duly qualified j .electors. The second petition was based on the following gronnds:— That any notice of the time or place of the election, or the situlation of the polling booths was not giveu •within the time or in the manner required. (_) That other irregularities occurred which .tended to defeat the fairness of the election. (3) That the nomination of any candidate was not given within the time or in the manner required. (4) That the persons signing the nomination paper of any candidate were not entitled to sign. ; Mr Fell appeared for Mr White, and Mr Pitt for Mr Bird. r M r Pitt objected that Mr White's petition had not been filed in the Resident Magistrate's Court in the district where the election took place provided by the Act, but had been lodged in Nelson. His Worship overruled this objection. A lengthy discussion then took place as to : the order in which the petitions should be dealt with: Mr Pitt was desirous that Mr j White's petition should be taken first, stating ! that if the allegations contained therein were : not upheld, 'he should then withdraw Mr Bird's petition against the validity of the whole election. To this Mr Fell objected, and at length it was decided tha. the question of the nominators being not duly qualified should ba gone into first, as it was alleged in all three petitions that this had been the case with both candidates. With regard to Mr Bird's nominators, Messrs Chattock and Wratt, it was urged that they were not duly qualified, the former not being on the list, and the latter, though on the list, not having paid his rates at the time of the nomination. 'Mi* Pitt submitted that although they might not have been entitled to vote there was nothing to prevent their nominating The 1 1th section of the " Regulation of Local Elections Act " provided that the nomination paper should be signed by « two electors of the district," and the interpretation clause of the same Act defined "an elector" to be " any person who is entitled under any law for the time being in force to vote at an election/,' He contended therefore that as they were on the electoral roll for the House of Representatives, and consequently were entitled "to vote at an election," they were electors under the Act. His Worship ruled against Mr Pitt on this point. There was a peculiar franchise for these first elections, certain persons had been made electors and by two of them was the nomination paper to be signed. What was the qualification was laid down in the 51st section of I'The Counties Act," and those alone who were electors under that section were entitled to nominate under the 1 1th section of " The Regulation of Local Elections Act " lie therefore ruled that Messrs Chattock and Wratt were not duly qualified nominators With regard to Mr White's nominators it was stated that on the morning of the nomination Mr White, as chairman of the Waimea Road Board, received f roni them their rates. The objection having also been raised that Mr White himself was not qualified on account of not having paid his rates, it was alleged that on the 1 3th December, two days before the nomination, Mr White, the ratepayer, handed oyer to Mr White, the chairman, the amount of his rates, but did not pay them tb the Secretary of the Board until the 18th, that was, between the days of nomination and polling. This point, h»wever, was not gone jnto as his Worship thought it better to go into the question of whether the time specified by the Act had been intervened between the notice and the election. It was admitted that the time mentioned had not been allowed, but argued that the provisions of the 10th section of the " Regulation of Local Elections Act " applied only to filling any ordinary vacancy," whjch this .first election could scarcely be said 159 be. His Worship was of opinion that in effect this was an ordinary vacancy. The Counties Act provided £bst there must be a governing body, and the Act came into force immediately upon the close pf the late session. Therefore an ordinary vacancy had actually been created by the law. The Returning .Oincer shonid have given notjee as provided -by Act, bnt as he had no.t done sp tlje plectoKd body h«i4 not the fulf opportunity that should have been allowed them to el§c£ their representative. It was therefore the duty oi

the Court to declare the elefefcion void. Some remarks made % Judges. _retfe and Denman in adjudicating pn a petition against a muni^. cipal election at home were applicable in the present case, and he Vould therefore read them. Mr Justice! Brett-said:-^-" But I think if the defept is^so [great .as t tp persuade the %coure|;&at the electora/Jp^a^material part bg them, were misled, s_ : asto cause the election** to be contrary to the real views of the constituency, and this result has fairly and reasonably been brought about by a defect in the notice, the Court has power to say that the notice is void, and if it is void it seems, that every person, nominated, as a candidate for election wo did be disqualified, and theelection would be void." Mr Justice Denman concluded his remarks by saying:— " That statute imposes on the; Court ;the dutyJ-pl-first seeing whether on the facts of the case, or. according to law.Tthe person declared elected was properiy elected, or if : any other persons were elected, and if the Const cannot say either that the person declared elected was properly elected, or that some other person tyas,the Court has power tef. declare the election void. Now in this case 1 can the Court : do. justice by declaring that-: any person is entitled to be considered' duly;; elected, or are we driven to the alternative^' of declaring the. election void? thing"! justice cannot he done except by adopting' the latter course. ;We cannot sayf;£hftt any one or more of the candidates were properly, rej^ted or elected. Consequently^©; ele(j-i tion is void, and there niust be anew one.' fe On the public ground that sufficient,. notice of the election had not been given he (Mr Broad) should declare the election void, eacta party to pay his own costs. > a" :