THE GLADSTONE ELECTION PETITION.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2793, 7 March 1882, Page 2

THE GLADSTONE ELECTION PETITION.

(Otago “ Daily Times.”) Their Honors Mr Justice Johnston and Mr Justice Williams sat .in ,the Supreme Court, at Dunedin, on Saturday morning, to hear an application for the withdrawal of the petition lodged against the return of Captain Sutter for Gladstone. ,

■Mr Denniston appeared for the petitioner, 1 and Mr Solomon for the respondent. Mr Denniston explained that the application was in the form prescribed by the Act, and there was no suggestion, of collusion or otherwise.

Mr Justice Johnston thought that the simple duty of the Court in a matter like this was to see that ,what was called political morality was protected, and that no improper withdrawal of the petition should take place. Mr Solomon stated that he offered no objection to the withdrawal of the petition.

Mr Justice Williams said that in England it was.. customary to file affidavits on both sides, negativing any suggestion of collusion. Although ho hardly thought it was necessary," it would have been better to have 4 done so here. , . ■ Mr Justice Johnston concurred.

Mr Denniston said that his first intention was to file such an affidavit, and he agreed that it would have been well to have done so. Mr Justice Johnston understood this to be the position., It was understood that there was primp fade case for a petition, inasmuch as- a poll was not taken at one of the booths up to the hour to which it should have been taken. The petition was founded mainly on that ground. But subsequently the petitioner discovered that even were he to succeed there would be no result from his petition, because ,it would not affect the result of the election. , . •

Their Honors decided that the petition was withdrawn by leave of the Court.

On the question of costs, Mr Solomon submitted that the respondent was entitled to all costs incurred by him up to the present. Mr Justice Johnston at first thought that it might be open to question whether costs were at the “ discretion of the Court,” but on further consideration he thought that the absence of the words “ discretion of the Court ” negatived that view. Mr Justice Williams was of the same opinion. Mr Denniston pointed out that it was a fault of the returning officer that had justified these proceedings. Mr Justice Johnston remarked that if a little more intelligence on the part of those who had instructed Mr Denniston had been used, they would have been enabled to see that the luring bait was not worth pursuing. Mr Solomon said that it was certainly through no fault of the petitioner that the proceedings had been taken. The Court then granted tKe application for withdrawal;' and gave costs, which are to be taxed at Christchurch, to the respondent.