TAU HENARE SAFE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 228, 5 March 1915, Page 4

TAU HENARE SAFE.

HEARING THE PETITION. By Telegraph.—Per Press Association, Whangarei, March 4. Mr. Prendergast called evidence to show that thirty voters turned up at Karakamu on election day, but no re-turning-olfloer arrived;, also that, had a polling-booth been provided, sft people would have voted. Wilceriwheri Hcmana said he was the clijef man at Karakamii, and made an attempt to obtain a deputy returningoflicer, without »avail. It was soojate then to go to any other booth. Only nine voted at Karakanui in the 1011 election, because nearly all went to a wedding at Port Albert. '

Other witnesses corroborated this statement.

Evidence lias concluded in the election petition. Counsel was addressing the Court when it adjourned for lunch. NORTHERN MAORI PETITION THROWN OUT. SOME MORE LINEN-IVASHING,

Whangarei, Last, Night. The Court threw out the Northern Maori election petition on the grounds that the number of deprived voters "was insufficient to affect tie result. ' •Mr. Seed applied for costs. He declared that the petition had been made not for the purpose of investigation, but for another purpose. He declared that 4 Nau-Paraone Kawiti had publicly stated at a Mormon Synod meeting at Te Horo, which had been mentioned in evidence! that he, would -withdraw the petition if Tau Henare promised to the Oposition; also that after the presentation of the petition Mr. Benfchy, the Liberal _ organise*-, offered to withdraw the petition on the same condition. Mr, Prendergast denied this statement, and evidencfc was called. Tau Henare, on oath, said that lie had attended' an open meeting of the Mormon Synod on January 4tli, not as a Mormon. Kawiti, one of the petitioners, asked the chairman of the meeting to enquire of witness which side of " the House lie 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 'electors. Kawiti offered to withdraw the petition'if support were promised for the Opposition, and Denehy did ilie 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.