LICENSING PETITIOINS. THE ELECTIONS DECLARED VOID.

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 250, 28 March 1888, Page 6

LICENSING PETITIOINS. THE ELECTIONS DECLARED VOID.

Auckland, March 23. Alji If. (i. Ski 1]!1 ]! Smith gave judgment this morning", an the It. M. Court, in the case of the licencing; petitions flguinst the return of Iho snccoh^ful candidates ior Auckland Noithand South Licensing District?.. Mr T. Cotloi appealed on behaiiofthopetitioner.s and Mr Theo. Cooper in 'support of the counter petition. His Worship gave judgment as loliov/a :— " The election of the livo candidate* w ho have been loturned by the Returning Officer inu»t- bo declared void on the £i omuls that (ls-i) the nomination papci-- weie not dclivojed in tho propor lime; (2nd) tlio nomination papers avcio t.hemi-cl\o* uiiomial. lho->o- ioi Auckland XorJi did not contain in any pait tho name oi (he di-uict. The} .vie diieotcd to the di-tncU. They a>o dm^ed to lhe Ronumng Officer ior the City ot Auckland Litvn-iug Election-, ana iho nominntors aie di>-(-übi'd as elect i\-> of the City ol' Avu'Lland Noith \V:ud. in Auckland South the nomination jwjiei'.s aic dnocLod I io the Uetutning Ofi.cer ior the City ot Au> kl.iud. but the clique;, lor which the uonunatois .no aliened to ,'ic elected is inconv< tly named. 'Lhe luM. ground is cloaily iatal to the election. The second it. not so dheotly. I'po*. roosideiatiun, 1 vlo „•>' see that I can cone to any other oonr'iwon than tiiat the objection must bo upheld. 1 ha\e no doubt tnat-ei Lion 11 of Regulation of the Local Electioi<& Act. 1376, h nianclatoiy, and that the toim oi nomination p^pot uuibt fcubsbantially comply with the form in hchedule 11. ThivO lonu requite*, the distiict for which the Returning G'acor i.s appointed to act to be t'onu:^ named. That has not been done in either case. in fact, in Auckland Xoi'Ji shore i.s nothing to show lor what diMnv.t tho candidates have I" un uoininrre'i. in AuckU'nd •Sot.th it only appeal 1 ly implication, a d rhnt not a neee-^.i.y one, fiom the fact that the wminat'i* ate described as elecois of that distiif*. Jfc i.s most unfortunate that tho-e who ~1L j I up these nomination papeis weir i ot/ -o caietul as to a-cu tain what the Act iCvjuiied, as they sPin to have been inqin.iug into the terms ot lhe appoint men uoi iho Kclui uitijx OtHcer. I do not ihiuk the nomination papers of the ui:-sv:cce>-iul candidate-, ate open to the '.inseobjeotion. Thedi-u ic: i-areconectlyde-:~ciibed in the dneeuurio c* tlio Returning Oihcei. The objection taken to them is that tne nominators aie described as electors foi " the above named districts." The toungnen in the seV-uuio lequiies them to be dtM.'iibed as " e.eato «. for the district ot ' (to be followed by tjc name of the district). Tho schedule dee*, not piesciibe in what way the dist.net shaii be named. If, tluicioje, tlie distiict) has once been corj ecciy named, it 'o me that the form is tobstantially complied with if in the «-econd place, wiioiej'the name it. requhed, the district ia described by any wouU which cleaily anJ distinctly, and without nmbicfuity, icfer to and identify the distiict pre\ioujiy mentioned. Tho Avoids "above named Jistiicts" could have but one meaning, and would be in my opinion a fcuitieieiiS c^.. « ifch the jnescubed form, I\-t a grammatical crrcn luis crept in. The letter "s" at the end oi the v. oid "district" has not been eiossed hoi:. ~^\e printed part- of the iorm. It v/as a m.r mi of pleading in the old da} s oi fcpeeial demurrers and replications tic. injvria that) falsa grammatica non vitiet. Only o'»e Uistricfc is refencd to. None could possibly be milled by the omission to eiase the letter "«!,'' and it would, 1 think, be straining the the Act and every canon of construction to hold that a mete clencd ci^or of this kind ! would \itiatethe whole •: v.nination paper. Apait. r.heiefore, from 'he counter petition 1 am of opinion that my deci°ion should be similar to that in the ease of Auckland I East. I have now to consider the counter petition. The queutaori is whether the action of the Rettr.nin" 1 Officer was such an irregularity as tended to defeat tho fairness of the election. An election is, I think, to be deemed fair when there is no reason to suspect that tie result does not represent the wish oi iho majority of the electors who lecord then- votes. It that is a correct description oi what is meant by fairnesfc, the result ot taese elections as declared by the Retiming Officer appears to show that the election was, in spite of its irregularities i which are purely technical), pertectly fail. Bub does election, as the word is used iv s..b-s.ection 6 of the first part of section 50 mean the proceedings down to the declaration of the result by the Returning Officer, or does it include aleo the result which, after objections have been heai'd and allowed upon petition, is declared by the Resident Magistrate as the result of the election V The word is used ' in several different senses throughout tho Act, which is defective in many ways, and in the second part of section 50 it is clearly u&ed in the sense of tho election as declared by the Resident Magistrate (whose election is nob void) though in other places it is not used in that sense. This second meaning of the word must, in my opinion, bo the correct meaning heie. Now in both these elections now undor consideration there have been the irregularities which are alleged in the counter petitions. The*e were irregularities in the proceedings. They did wot defeat the fairness ot the election as declared by the Returning Officer if uhc description of fairness x>f the election which I have adopted is the' correct one ; but they have ! tended to defeat the iairness of the eloction when tho result is declared upon considera- j tion of the primary petitions. If the primary petitions stood alone, these irregularities would rerjuhe me to make a declaration which would ons>tithecandidates chosen by a majority of vo!<e^, and would place in their btead thieo oa .uidates at least who | had not a majority of votes, and thus the ultimate result would be that tho wish of the majority of tho electors would be frustrated. It is true .that the irregularities alleged in the counter petitions are not the only irregularities which lead to the conclusion at which ] should arrive if I had to consider the primary petitions alono: butthewordsusedin the Actare "tended to defeat.' A cause capable of producing a certain remit icndf to produce it, although there may be other causes capable of producing a like lesnlt co-operating with it. In these eases, tho informality in tho nomination papers was one cause. As that is nob alleged in the counter petitions, I cannot rely upon it a& a ground for my decision. The irregularities allogcd in the counter petitions constitute another cause upon which Ido rely. 3n my opinion, if I were to declare the three candidates elected in whoFe favour I .should have to mako a declaration if the primary petitions were to be considered alone, they would not have ,a fair election, i shall, therefore, declare the whole election void in each caf-e " Mr Cooper paid that as both sides had practically been huccee.sful, ho supposed tint no costs would be allowed. Mr Cotter raised several points which ho considered somewhat inconsistent in the judgment,, Jlis Worship said that he had tried to pub tho questions as clearly as ho coul,d. In coustrmng the Acts ho was aware tiiat

he would bo placed in an anomalous position on account of its construction. The whole thing seemed with absurd inconsistencies. Mr Cooper said that it was simply a case of dismitffin^: tho iiffet petition without costs, and then upholding the counter petition, of coume, without co.sts in that case also. Both side* had been succesphi'. Air Cotter again ivii-ed \arious points in tl.e judgment. His Worship paid: "I have ti ied to put the matter as clearly a^ I etui, and you should not try to twis-tit." Mr Cotter said that he should be porry to do so, but lie wifclu'd to clearly uudei stand the matter. l[i« Wutship eon'inued that thcie had been irre^ulantio- m tlie election w hich hud tended to iiu«.!«Mo with its burner. Upon the lirst petition he had to declare that tho lii-i' count as to tho letwrnoi the iii '-><:. (i\o candidates v. is upheld, but in deahtiji' wiih (he prayjr ot tho pctitionoib he had to con.-idor (he counter jietition, and Im 'mild not uphold the, hicond count of l',v petilion. Jf» would make only <;ne <li -'".n. ition upon ihe two petitions, \i/ , th.v the whole e'oclion i.-, void.