THE ELECTION PETITION.

Te Aroha News, Volume II, Issue 67, 13 September 1884, Page 2

THE ELECTION PETITION.

On Tuesday afternoon last an enquiry was held at the Court-hou^e, Te Aroha, before Harry Kenri'jk, E.sq., 11. M., into the subject matter of a petition filed by Denis Murphy, Thomas Gavin, and Daniel Frazer, praying that the election of E hvard Kersey Cooper as Councillor for the Te Aroha Riding of the Piako County, on the 25th August, be declaivd void, on account of an irregularity that occurred in the proceedings wincli tend 01 1 to defeat the fairne?s of the elei-Hon Mr Miller, of Thames, appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

Mi- II E 0. npbeil requested to be diowod to appear on be'iali of hiuwll, i.> an iutuvste i ralop »,yor, an 1 on beialf of other iutereik'i ratepayersgeneral Iv T>p ATiiri^tmtp rn lo] ho c>nl I not il]m\v Mr Ciiniili'll t'> :i]»poir in this inlofinil" nn I <renenl imnn o r. Tixto was no appearance of Mr Cooper, nor of any counsel on his boiait. Mr John Hunt,, the Returning )llicor, was also unrepresented by counsel, Mr Afill'M", in opening his oa^o, stated i)»,it tl i i -* petition wii-« preseutel under Section i-,s of the Local Elections Act, 1870. Tm» petition was made on the ground that, holders of minor"' ri^ht.s were not allowed by t-i« Returning Otlicer to roeor I thoir vote, an 1 wairon,'"lit nn Icr sn'i-^i'ction (i of section .">0 of said Local Elections Act, which -ays f tiat. any ol< cthn ■siia'l be null and void where any irregularity occurred in the pi..eoe lings, whicli, in the opinion of the Resident Magistrate, tended to lefoat the fairness of the election. Mi Miller slat. 'd fiat the petitioner-* did nol ••orne there for the purpose of getting Mr Murphy elected . in^tea I of Mr Cooper, hut for the purpose of getting i ruling I'kuh this court whether they .ire to be disfranchised by the action of the Returniuy Officer or not. Section 4-1 of the Counties Amendment Act. 1882, is rery brief, very simple, and very definite, and say, " That every holder ■>f a minors' rig it, not being an alien, ■dull be entitled to vote a( an election of councillors for the riding in which he ••csido*, and in no other riding." We proceed with this petition mi lei t ion (5 of section f>o, Local Elections Vet, l.S7f>. And we contend that if we can only show that one person was refused the riuht to recor I his vote, beiny: properly qualified to do so, that is all i hat is necessary, for tin' 5 ? one may have been put forward on behalf of nvuiy others siinilaily j)laced, as a test case. But we si c i i a position to prove that not only one, but something like 20 persons, iolders of miners' rights were refused permission to record their votes, an 1 thai there were some 30 to 50 others down here on tli3 polling day, who would have come forward to record their votes, but were deterred from doing so by hearing of the decision of the Returning Officer. Mr John Hunt, the Returning Officer, was the first witness called, and on being sworn, he stated that he was the Returning Officer appointed by tiie Piako County Council for all the ridings in the said County. He had no special appointment as returning officer for the Te Aroha or for any one of the ridings in particular. Was verbally appointed returning officer (Mr Hunt gave in a written appointment dated September 15th of this year. Had no previous appointment in writing. Was appointed returning officer in 1881 ) In reply to Mr Miller : Got intimation from the Cl"rk of the Piako County Council of the extraordinary vacancy caused by tho resignation of Mr H E. Wlutaker. and requesting me to make due .'.rrangement.s to fill the vac incy by election, which I proceeded to do. Xotieos, as advertised in the Akoha News, DoLh as regar Is the nomination .in I tiie election, were here put in as evidence. Nomination took place on Auy;. lrfth and tiie election on Aug. 2nth. On the day of nomination Messrs E. Iv. Cooper, Denis Murphy, ami William Archibald Murray were duly nominated, md I satisfied myself that they were propei ly nominated in accordance with the requirements of the Act, and I likewise ported a notice o1o 1 said nomination outside the Court-house. Giv due notice of the poll. There was only one polling-booth, that at Te Aroha Courthouse. On the day of election three scrutineers; were duly appointed in writing, ami the declarations taken. Tiie papers, together witu the roll used on the occasion, are now sealed up a? required by the Act. The election was held on the Jay appointed, an I resulte I in Mr E. Lv. Corper receiving tiie hi_»h«»st number of \otes. 1 proclaimed tne result ver killy to the perplc assemble 1 outside the Court-house immediately after tiie result was known, and posted the notice outside the Court-house; also gave notice by advertisement in the local paper (said notice in Auoiia Nkws was hern put torward as evidence). On the day of of election several persons, possibly twenty, claimed to vote as holders of miners' rights. I deelintd to allow these persons to vote because their names were not on the- roll supplied to m? for use on the occasion. Under section 40 of Counties Act for 187(5, anil also section L 4 I made this decision. (Section 40 ?ays, " Every person of the aye of 21 years whose name appears on the electors' roll of a riding shall he a county elector ■so loiil' as such roll is in force, etc.") By Mr Kenriek : my simple reason for refusing th"s" voters was because they were not enrolled. Edwird Q'lifin (mvo'-u) an I in reply te M Millei state. l tuat ne acted as one of the -cniUneers ,\\ th" late election. Recollect persons coming on tuat day and tendeiiii 1 ; miners' rights for the purp'>-e of hei n-.r allow o Ito vole. Probably lf> or 20 did so. Tne Returning Officer declined toallow them to vole because their names were not on tne roll, those who thus tond'Mvl t.ioir vo'"s were r"s, lents in the disi riot. I did not tender in v own vote on aeeoiini of tne decision of th«» Resuming Offoer, and 1 !\iio.v nu iibers of other* who did not coin • f invar i for a live lv.ison. Denis Murphy (sworn) : In reply to Mr Miller, was one of tiie candidates at the late election who was not, returned. To my knowle Ige a number of persons, loltlers of miners' rig. its and residents in the district, not being aliens, tendered

their vote? on t.ie oeeasio is re!' mt.j I to Mini wer> refus>| by th-» Kt'iairuiu ■• Officer [Mr Miller here iiau le I a Im of som »50 n iui"< ro w.tn »*«, an- 1 aske ' litii ir of vi* owii knovvle Iga li ; w isiiw.in 1 hiesn persons (nn*t being on t.ho roll) i '.'imt 1 down on the < I . i y <>F tie i*!(»otiou ''or purpose of votin r, an 1 did not lo so )>ecau>e of fc.K3 li-'lurning 0 Ticr'^ lecis'ou. Witness ivplie lin the uflir.uative.] T.iis dose 1 the evidence or behalf of til ip petitioners. Mr limit r.h"ii stated to fcho Court io refused to allow these pet sons to vote I'or ihe reasons he had already given, lie did not. believe it was ev.'r the inteniion of the Act to allow any an I everyiody who chos<> to go an 1 pay £1 for a niner's right 5 minutes or a couple of lay- prior to the election, simply For the -.»ike of recording their \o!es, the. right ti> do so. men who, but for tie election, would not I rive ta'<en out a miner's rig it at all. Hi* was aw, ire th.it >u the pievious Saturday some thirty miners' rights had been taken out and i here was nothing in the state of the field to justify their action in so i.oing, wd he b.-linve.! l ! iev did so For the sole iliject of voting at tie election. He thought to allow persons to vote on t\\c strength of a miner's right only, just taken out; solely for the ocoision, their names not being on the roll, would be j simply openi ig a door to corrupt practices, and was never t!ie intention of tle framers of the Act. He desired to lisc.iargo his duties faithfully and impartially, and had, to the best of his belief, acted in accordance with the meaning of the Act. Section 4-0 of the Counties Act of 7(1 had never been repealed, and therefore was still in force, t,hat beirrg so, the amen litu-nt referred to was undoubtedly very confuting. Mr Miller then addressel the Court, and in doing so contended that at the time of the election no returning officer was present. Air Hunt was not appointed prior to the election in writing, and nn ler the seal of the Piako County Council as required with regard to public bodies. At the time of the election Mr Hunt was not even appointed under the hand of two of the members of the County Council and its chairman, or in any loyal wav, and was therefore not legally appointed -it all. But even if he ! were appointed as he states, then I contend he was not duly appointed returning officer for the Te Aroha Hiding ; the appointment mu«t be separate an 1 distinct for each riding, as defined under regulations for Local Elections Act. Then, as regards the grounds upon which the petition is lodged, it is plain from j the evidence given here to-day, that a far larger number than the majority in favour of Mr Cooper, and who had the right to vote, tendered their votes and 1 were refused. In giving his decision his Worship i said : The questions to be decided are as I follows : Ist. ILis there been any legal [election at all? 2nd. If there has been an election, have the reasons put forward tended to ren ler it an unfair election ? I think it is clear that with regard to every riding in a county, or war. l in a borough, the returning officer must be duly aprointe 1 for each sue i riding or war 1 under the Local Elections Act of 187(5, Now Mr Hunt, it is stated, was appointed returning officer for Piako County geneially. But there is no sucii electoral district as Piako County at all, any more than there is no such electoral li«trict as the colony of New Zealand. Every returning officer must be duly appointed for each riding. It is quite possible for one mm to bo separately appointed i'or eicn of several districts, and for him to appoint a depntv if occasion arises for his doing so. With regard to the 2nd question, as ther" has been no election then- is nothing to appeal against, therefore there is no question to decide 1 decline, therefore, to give any decision with respect to the petition, on the gronn 1 that no legal election ha* taken place. Hi* Worship wont on to remark that Lie Act distinctly says thai the vacancy must be filled within not less than twenty or more than twentyfive clear days fiom date of the vac.uu'y occurri :g. By the evidence of the Returning Officer it appeared that twentysix days had elapsed before the new member was elected. This alone would tend to make the election null and void, one day more than the time allowed by law having elapsed. With regard to the Uetnruiug Officer refusing to allow holders of miners' rights to vote, because not on the roll, he was wrong in thus ruling. The Amendment Act of 1882 distinctly rules that every holder of a miner's right (whether on the roll or not) shall have the right to vote. In fact it is sufficient qualification to enable any person to vote at such an election as tin's, to be the possessor of a miner's right and a resident of the district.