MAUKU ELECTION PETITION

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 7, Issue 348, 25 January 1918, Page 1

MAUKU ELECTION PETITION

Hearing Opened

An enquiry into irregularities in voting said to have occurred in the recent election of Mr J. 8. MontSmerie as the member for the auku Biding on the Franklin County Council was opened at the Pukekohe Courthouse on Wednesday last by Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M.

Mr J. Stanton appeared for the petitioner (Mr J. Henry, the former representative) and Mr A. E. Skelton represented the respondent (Mr Montgomerie). The petition, which was signed by Messrs Joseph Henry, William Howe, Arthur E Wright, James B. Goldsworthy, Walter G. Ple>dell, and William Howard, all of Patumahoe, set forth (1) that the election was held on November 14th last, the candidates being Messrs Joseph Henry and Mr J. S. Montgomerie and Mr Montgomerie being declared by the Returning Officer as duly elected; (2) that at the election votes were given or allowed for Mr Montgomerie by or on behalf of persons who worn not present and could not and did not vote at the said election; (3) that persons were allowed to and did vote at the said election on behalf of electors who were not present and that such votes were allowed by the Returning Officer as valid and if the same were disallowed as they should be then Mr Montgomerie would not be and could not be duly declared to be returned at the said election but Mr Henry would be and should be declared to have been returned; (4) that persons were allowed to and did vote who were not on the roll; (5) that unnaturalised enemy aliens were allowed to vote at the election —Wherefore the petitioners prayed that it might be determined that Mr Montgomerie was not duly elected and that Mr Henry was duly elected and ought to have been so declared or in the alternation that the election was void COUNSEL'S OPENING SPEECH

Mr Stanton, in his opening statement, said that ttie petition was presented under Section 45 of the Local Elections and Polls Act, 1908, and stated that his objections included one case in which a son was away from New Zealand and whose father holding a power of attorney produced it and asked for and obtained a voting paper. Another case was that of a voter who held an authority to vote on behalf of his wife and voted for her. The name of Ambury's, Limited, appeared on the roll without any name to vote on behalf of that company and he (Mr Stanton) submitted that accordingly no one should have been allowed to vote in that direction. Similarly with respect to the entry on the roll of the "Methodist Church Trustees" he argued that no vote should have been allowed. Mr Stanton further mentioned that an enemy alien had also been allowed to vote contrary to the War Regulations 1917. 'Mr Stanton added that it was not suggested that there was any deliberate impersonation as the persons concerned had acted under the belief that they were entitled to vote and doubtless the Deputy Returning Officers also thought so. On the grounds mentioned he asked for a scrutiny. Mr Skelton stated that he was prepared to admit that two instances of irregular voting had occurred and under such circumstances he had agreed with his client to accept a scrutiny as if certain irregular votes were picked out haphazard it was sale to assume that there would be quite a number of other questionable votes which would make the result of the election a matter of speculation. One pleasing feature, said Mr Skelton, was that there was no suggestion of any malpractice in any way. The Magistrate : They seem to be mere mistakes. RETURN ISO OFFICER'S EVIDENCE

Alan Percival Day, Clerk to the ] Franklin County Council and Returning Officer for the election, was the first witness called. He produced the roll of voters for the Mauku Riding together with a copy of the instructions sent to all Deputy Returning Offrers The scaled packet of voting papers used at the election and handed to the police was also produe d in O'Urt and the declaration of the poll which appeared on the outside of such packet read "Henry 258, Montgomerie 2G2." Leplying to Counsel for the petitioner, Sir Day esfd 'hero were no informal votes given. In answer to Mr Skelton, Mr Day said that the name of A.. J. Batty was not en the electoral roll and he was not an elector of the Mauku Riding. He (Mr Day) had not beard of a case of an elector who on being asked and admitting that he was under 21 years of was refused a vote but sutisoquenty presenter! himself at another polling bjuth and voted there. Jh re was one vote which the Deputy Returning Officer disalluwed as informal and which he (Mr Day) passed as in order.

rOWER-OFATT RNKY VOTES Arthui Aus'nn Halli<Ja>, farmer, of Kiroka, depoßHd that he was not on th'» roll fur the Mauku ruling. The name of v V Ualud-y appearing on the r<ll win iline of Ins ron, wit «a. way it the. tiuj • of the. eltcion Hs (w.tnesss) held a power of attorney for his 3 u and acting on tUat he secured a ballot

paper at the polling booth at the Karaka Road Board Office and voted on behalf of his son, thinking he was entitled to do so. The vote he cast represented two votes. Mr Skelton intimated that he had no question to ask the witness as the vote was one of the cases he had previously referred to. Henry Mehaffy, farmer, of Papakura, deposed that his name was not on the ratepayers' roll for the Mauku riding. The name of Jessie Mehaffy thereon was that of his wife, for whom he held a power-of-attorney. Acting on that he exercised the three votes to which she was entitled. At the time of voting at the Te Hihi school he produced his power-of-attorney and after reading it the presiding officer (Mr Gibbs) gave him the voting papers. Mr Skelton informed the Magistrate that he did not desire to cross-examine the witness as it was the second of the invalid votes he had previously admitted. Later on Mr Mehaffy was recalled and, in reply to Mr Skelton, said on the day of the election his wife was in indifferent health. His solicitors had advised him that he could vote for her under the power-of-attorney but he could not say that otherwise his wife would have been- well enough to have voted herself.

INVALID VOTES ADMITTED Mr Stanton claimed that as Mr Henry had been defeated by four votes and that as admitted by the two witnesses called five votes had been illegally cast he had established a case for a scrutiny. Mr Skelton admitted that a power-of-attorney undoubtedly afforded no right to vote and as the five votes used by the witnesses were probably cast in Mr Montgomerie's favour there would apparently be a majority of one in favour of Mr Henry. He (Mr Skelton), however, intended to challenge certain other, votes, probably given on the other side, and he therefore agreed to a scrutiny, which he asked should be of a complete nature, viz., every vote to be examined and checked.

SCRUTINY CARRIED OUT The Magistrate having decided to hold a scrutiny, the same was thereupon commenced. First the voting papers were casu - ally examined by the Magistrate and one ballot paper, containing a vote for Mr Henry, was disallowed, the Magistrate holding that the intention of the voter was not made clear, Mr Montgomerie's name although struck out having a X (cross) opposite to it and Mr Henry's name being left intact. This assuming that the five invalid votes cast by the two witnesses who had given evidence were in Mr Montgomerie's favour made the totals at this stage as equal, viz., Montgomerie 257, Henry 257.

The voting papers were next all minutely inspected by the Magistrate, the names and roll numbers of the voters being read out and being subject to challenge by either counsel for subsequent consideration, the nature of the voting as recorded on the papers being, however, not disclosed by the Magistrate. Among the anomalies revealed were disparities between the votes cast and the record of the same as marked off on the electoral rolls by the deputy returning officers, some votes as recorded being in excess of the number (one, two or throe) set opposite the name of the voter on the electoral rolls and other voting papers having been issued to persons whose names had not been marked off ou the deputy returning officers' rolls. Confusion in this way had evidently mainly arisen by reason of a mistake in the type-written copies of the electoral roll whereby the numbers from 317 to 354 were set down as 217 and so on to 264, thus causing a duplication of those numbers inclusive and leading to the errors on the part of the deputy returning officers. In this way Mi Montgomerie himself, who was entitled to two votes and voted only n Auckland, was made to appear as having recorded two votes in Auckland and three at Karaka In another instance, viz , at Waiau Pa, five voting papers bore the roll number of an elector, who was en titled to three votes. Further, it transpired that uiauy voting papers, although officially marked with the name of the polling booth, had not been initialled by the issuing officer.

Mr Stanton mentioned that one vote he challenged wan that of a man whom he believed was dead ami Mr Sk-dton remarked that he, ou his part, deired among other things to make (inquiry as to the

nationality of a voter with an apparent German name, whereupon Mr Stanton retorted that such voter was a Swiss. At the conclusion of the scrutiny at 5 p.m some 25 ballot papers, each representing one or m.)re votes, were reserved for argument as to validity or irregularity, in addition to the five admitted invalid votes. ENQUIBY ADJOURNED Tke Magistrate asked whether in view of the inaccuracies disclosed counsel desired to call further evidence.

Mr Lkelton replied in the affirmative, adding that he wished to tender evidence to show that a person who was entitled to three votes was only allowed by a deputy returning officer to record one vote. Mr Stanton similarly expressed a wish to call witnesses to prove the invalidity of votes he had challenged. One instance of this, he said, was three votes recorded for Ambury's Ltd, for whom, he argued, no person should have been allowed to vote by reason of no name appearing on the electoral roll on behalf of the Company. The Magistrate noted Mr Stanton's contention that the name of some officer on behalf of Ambury's Ltd. should have appeared on the roll.

Mr Skelton said he was prepared to admit that the Managing Director of Ambury's Ltd. had exercised the Company's votes but he (Mr Skelton) claimed that he was legally entitled to do so. The Magistrate remarked that he was inclined to think that the state of the rolls as marked off by the deputy returning officers and the confusion which had evidently arisen by the typewriting error in their preparation would make it necessary for another election to be held. The Act provided that he had to disallow more votes than were entitled to be given and the scrutiny according to the marked rolls showed that such votes had been given. His Worship, however, announced that he would adjourn the enquiry to Wednesday, February 6th at 11 am and after hearing evidence as requested by counsel he would come to a decision.