WITHIN THE DOMINION

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 7, Issue 184, 12 April 1915, Page 5

WITHIN THE DOMINION

(By Talegr&pk.—Preen Association.) SUPREME COURT. GENERAL ELECTION PETITIONS. WELLINGTON, This Day. The full Court, consisting of Sir Robert Stout (Chief Justice), Judges JBdwarqfy Ooopdr, and Hosking sat this morning to blear argument on law points arising out of the recent elections petition cases in Hawke’s Bay and Taumarunui cases, of Islands, and stated by Election Courts, with the consent of the partitas, for the opinion of the full Court. Sir John Findlay stated it had been agreed to first take the question of validity of the poll arising out of ti Hawkers Baßy and Taumarunui cases, .and the® the question of time at wh: tbe petition must be lodged arising out of the Taumarunui and the Bay of Islands case. The Court agreed to thlg course. Mr Skerrett, K.C., with, him Messrs Lusk and Mood appeared for the petitioner (Campbell). Sir John Pnldlay, K.C., and with him Ms Levi for the respondent (McNab). In opening the case Mr Findlay stated that the question relating to the

validity of the roll had been stated for ■eonsidteration of the Court as follows: "Whether, if s voter’s name is without fraud or wilful misconduct placed on the subsisting roll as an elector although bo did not possess the necessary reid>ential qualification or is without frond or wilful misconduct retained on the roll, although he had since I- ing placed on the roll lost or forf itied h.i s residential qualifications,the i lection Court can under section 196, . nbsection P. of ‘‘The Legislative Act, 1 ’OS, disallow his vote at the election.” Proceeding with his argument, Mr 1 indlay contended that the roll was not conclusive. Since the Wakanui ace, which made the roil conclusive, legislation completely changed the law ~n the>■ question and he quoted in- ' ancss to show why this was done. It as presumed that the Legislating was ’..miliar with decisions of the High Gourmand it was for his fribnd to show •’ay the Legislature, knowing the Wa- ' anui case wa 3 decided in 1902, deliberately introduced a section into the let of 1902, which changed the whole aspect of the position. He proceeded to quote "sections of the Legislature and Defence Acts to show who were

: entitled and who were not entitled to i be cn the roll, laying particular stress | on section 44 of the Legislature Act, [ and submitting in all cases that a per- | sen must be lawfully cn the roll and, if ho lost qualification then lie could not be lawfully on the roil. Legislation, for instance, said a Maori should not be registered as a voter for an European election, y-et Maoris were on the roll and the Court must decide whether, under surh circumstances, the ; MaMori could cast a valid vote. The | sands position arose in ccnnccicn with | aliens and persons of unsound mind. I Reverting to section 44 of the Legislature Ac t, he contended that subsection 2 distinctly disqualified certain persons from voting, and the Election Court, must, follow the working of the Act .and disallow any votes coming within that subsection. No such provision wag 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 allow such votes now. He proposed to ask tbe Court to interpret the words, “illegally on the roll,” in their ordinary sentfe, that was without legal right or contrary to law. Mr Findlay argued that the mere fact of the name being on the roll gave no right to cast a valid vote if the name was illegally entered or illegally retained on the roll. Then he must ask the Court to Act as Revision Court and disallow such votes. Mr Levi, following, contended there could bp no question about the right of the Court to go behind the roll tha.t was explicitly provided for by statute. The only question was: How far the Court would act as a Revisory body?

Mr Johnston, for C. K. Wilson, in the Taumanmui case, said tho basis of the right to votfe was tho form of a claim. If a person got on the roll ■without complying with the terms of that claim then he was there by fraud, and should not have hi s vote allowed. This Court resumes at 2 o’clock. STRAW CHAFF YALI'Ai? JU iC rl.'riiDoVj i (3 i.,.-.. WELLINGTOJs TCr " In the tologrcphrd re A r s-.yk; speech c.t t’ic C Ceo cf hr 1 r :