DISPUTED ELECTIONS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 83, 12 April 1915, Page 6

DISPUTED ELECTIONS.

ARGUMENT BEFORE THE FULL COURT. I United Press Association. Wellington, April 11. The Full Court consisting of Sir Robert Stout (Chief Justice), Justices Edwards, Cooper, Chapman, and Husking, sat this morning to hear argument on the law points arising out ot the recent elections petition in the cases of Hawke’s Bay, Taumarumii, and Bay of Islands, and which were stated by the election courts with the consent of the parties for the opinion of tlie Full Court. Sir John Findlay stated that it had been agreed to first take the question of the validity of the Roll arising out of the Hawke’s Bay and Taumanmni cases, and then the question of the time in which the petition must lie lodged arising out of the Taumaiumii and Bay of Island’s, ease.

The Court agreed to this course. Mr Skerrett, K.C., with him Messrs Lusk and Wood, appeared for petitioners (Mr Campbell), Sir John Findlay K.C., with him Mr Levi lor the respondent (Dr. McNab). Opening the case, Sir John Findlay stated that the question relating to the validity of the roll had been stated for the consideration of the Court as follows: “Whether, if a voter’s name is without fraud or wilful misconduct placed on the subsisting roll roll as an elector, although he did possess the necessary residential qualications or is without fraud or wilful misconduct placed on the subsisting roll as an election, although he did not' possess the necessary residential qualifications or is without fraud or wilful misconduct retained on the roll, although he had since being placed on the roll lost or forfeited his residential qualifications, the election court can under section 190, sub-sec-tion F, of “The Legislative Act, 1908,” disallow his vote at the election. ’’Proceeding with his argument, Sir John .Findlay contended that the roll was not conclusive, as since the Wakanui case, which 1 made the roll, conclusive legislation had completely changed the law on the question, and he quoted instances to show why this was done. It was presumed that the Legislature was familiar with the decisions of the High Court, and it was ■for his friend to show why the Legislature, knowing that the Wakanui ebse had been decided in 1882, deliberately introduced the section into the Act "of 1902, which changed" the whole aspect of the position. He proceeded to quote sections of the Legislature ’Defence Acts to show who was entitled and who was not entitled to be on the roll, laying particular stress on Section 44 ! of the Legislature Act, submitting in all cases that the person must be lawfully on the roll, and if lie lost his qualification, then he could not be lawfully on the roll. Legislation, for instance, said that a Maori should nob be registered as a voter for a European election, yet the Maoris were on the roll, and the. Court must decide whether under such circumstances a Maori could cast a valid vote. The same position arose in connection with the aliens and persons of unsound, mind. Reverting to Section 41 of the Legislature Act, he contended sub-section 2 distinctly disqualified certain persons from voting, and the election court must follow the wording of the Act and disallow any votes coming within that sub-section. No such provision was in the ,Act when the Wakanui case was heard, and it would require very special circumstances to justify the Court in taking a different view; and to allow such votes now, lie proposed to ask the Court to interpret the words “illegally on the roll” in their ordinary sense, that was, without legal right or contrary to law.