NORTHERN MAORI SEAT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 53, 5 March 1915, Page 2

NORTHERN MAORI SEAT.

THE ELECTION PETITION. Per Press Association. Whangarei, March 4. Mr Prendergast called evidence to show that thirty voters turned up at Karakanui on election day, but no returning officer ' arrived. Also, that had a polling booth been provided, fii'ty-six people would have voted. Wikeriwheri Hemana said he was the chief man in Karakanui who made attempts to obtain a deputy return, ing officer, but without avail. It was too late then to go to any other booth. Only nine voted at Karakanui in the 1011 election becauso nearly all went to a wedding at Port Albert. Other witnesses gave corroborative evidence.

THE PETITION THROWN OUT. Whangarei, March 4. The Court threw out the Northern Maori election petition on the grounds that the number of deprived voters was insufficient to affect the result. Mr lteid applied for costs. He declared that the petition had been made not for the purpose ol' investigation, but for another purpose., He declared that Nau Parnone Kawiti had publicly stated at a Mormon Synod meeting at To Horo, which had been mentioned in evidence, that he would withdraw the petition if Tan Henare promised to support the Opposition ; also that after the presentation of the petition Mr Denehy, the Liberal organiser, offered to withdraw the petition on the same condition. Mr Prendergast denied this statement, and evidence was called. Tau Henare, on oath, said that he had attended an open meeting of the Mormon Synod on January 4th, not as a Mormon. Kawiti, one of the petitioners, asked the chairman of the 'meeting to enquire of witness which side of the House he would -support. Witness replied that he had heard of a petition being framed, and he would 'answer after the petition had been heard, and when witness had met his I *t(vßii' » ■»■ *--»:.•—•"♦ - •

doctors. Kawiti offered to withdraw the petition if support were promised for tho Opposition, and Denehy did the same.

The evidence regarding Denehy was ruled inadmissible, as Denehy was not cited in the petition. The case was .adjourned to Auckland in order to consult the authorities respecting the special circumstances, and regarding costs.