Mr. Jennings Out.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 289, 15 May 1915, Page 4

Mr. Jennings Out.

TAUMARUNUI ELECTION VOID, JUIX3IENT OF THE COWL'.. A BY-ELECTION NECESSARY. MR. JKNNINCS ELIGIBLE. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Nigjit.

Their Honors Mr. Justice Cooper and Mr. Justice Chapman delivered judgment at the Supreme Court this morning, in the Taumarunui election petition case, in which Mr. A. H. Johnstone and Mr. Sharpies appeared for petitioner,. Mr. C. K. Wilson, and Mr. (1. P. Finlay and Mr. J. I). Vernon for respondent, Mi - . W. T. Jennings. The Court decided that the election for the Taumarunui seat must lie declared void on tlie gromi 1 that the elected candidate, Mr. Jennings, did not at the time of the election possess an elector's qualifications to be a candidate, as his name was not on the roll for New Plymouth, which: Court decided was lias place of residence, and he had not qualified as a voter in the Tn.ilmarunui electorate, to the roll of which he had transferred his name some time before the election. In the course of their decision the Court dealt at length with the first and principal point raised—-tUe right of respondent to stand us a candidate for the seat. Discussing the respondent's claim for a transfer to the Taumarunui roil on November llth and lOttl, 1!)14, their Honors remarked: The question is what rule is to guide us in determining as a matter of fact whether respondent had resided in the Taumarunui district for a month immediately preceding the dale of his registration on the roll of that district. In general terms, "residence" usually imparts some idea of fixity though not necessarily of permanence, and the claim made here by respondent is that he resided either at the house o' his friend, where he knew there was always room available, for him though he hud no sort of tenure, or at the hotel at To Kuiti, where lie usually stayed, lie must, however, show that in the popular sense he had for that month resided in the district. It is not sufficient that he made a prolonged visit. It may he that a person who owing to the nature of his occupation wanders round the district without leaving it has a claim to the franchise, but that is not respondent's condition. Respondent had a placo of abode within section 00 at Now Plymouth and within the principle of all authorities he had a right to claim that he resided there. The house belonged to his wife and it wus a matrimonial home of both. He had an incontrovertible right to go and remain there whenever it suited him. It was, in fact and in law, his home. It seems to us that the real position was that he thought he had better transfer his registration to the district in.which ho took so great an interest and which he desired to represent, but he had never removed thither or become in any sense a resident there. If the question arose in another way it would in such a case he unjust to deprive a man of his vote in the dis trict where he resided merely becaus' he had gone on a prolonged electioneering tour to another. We are of opinion that he did not reside in Taumarunui, but that ho did reside in New Plymouth. As ho was not on any other roll it follows that we must in terms of section l!)(i sub-section F disallow his vote after holding that, us the respondent was not an elector within the definition, he could not be described as "a person registered as an elector.". The Court adds: "The result we are compelled to hold is that the respondent was not at the date • of the election qualified to be elected as a member of the House of Representatives."

The Court proceeded to refer to certain other questions which were raised by the petition as to which a great deal of evidence was called and to which arguments of counsel were addressed. As to the irregularities at Mahirakau, the conclusion is that the only provision for preserving secrecy was such as the voter must create himself by taking care to lean over his paper and fold it before lie altered his position. This must be contrasted with the requirements of the statute. The principle of election by secret ballot was disregarded and couk not be reserved at this booth when w provision was made and no adequate precaution taken to ensure secret votin< and each voter was left to his owi measures to ensure the secrecy of hi vote. It appears to us that both thes conditions would have to concur befor a Court could pronounce that Hie irrc laritics were such as ought to be con doned by it here. A timid voter inigh linve been inclined to alter his or he vote rather than run the risk of havim it disclosed, and that is what the bal'o is meant to guard against. Counsel fo the respondent argued that the Cour ought to say that no such effect had en sued because notoriously most of tli people who voted there belonged to th Labor party and were supporters of res pondent, and would have voted for hill undoi any conditions. When the Cour declines to allow an irregularity to a flee the result it usually does so because i can see that, having regard to the mini ber of votes polled at the place where-; occurred, the irregularity could not hivvi been affected by the result. The figure here do not tend to that conclusion The majority was 205. From these, ac cording to the admission made at th hearing, votes which must be disallow cd amount to about 35 votes and abou the same number are seriously elm! longed, some of which would cerlainl; have to be disallowed. If these are talc en together the majority secured by th respondent is absorbed to ascertain th actual result. A scrutiny would lj necessary, as we cannot speculate a to who has the benefit of the sevent; challenged voles. The irregularities committed by J. !1 Young in sending out for signature ; number of enrolment forms alread; (signed by him as a witness was thus re ferred to by the Court: There was an other irregular proceeding as to whici we think we ought to express our opini on. A man named James Hums Youir was employed for some time prior t the election in the capacity of agent fo the Licensed Victuallers Association. II busied himself in collecting application from numerous persons to be placed in the roll and on the day of the poll h was engaged in marshalling motor ear for the liquor parly, lie sftys lie new> was an agent for respondent, but one telegraphed to him that he was short o forms of application for enrolment. 11. sent in some (iMII of these applications most of which it was admitted wer made bv persons, entitled to be on Ih roll. Most reckless, and we think 1111 scrupulous, irregularity was coinniitl'i in connection with this proceeding, lies pondent was in no way to blame fo these proceedings. Votes of the elector so placed on the roll have been dcciUec by full Court to be valid despite irrc: gnlarities when the, elector is qualified la the part they took in the proceed ings the electors probably acted in ignor mice. We do not treat this as an irrc gularity affecting the result of the dec tion, but we mention it as a grave ques tion ninv arise hereafter as to how &' ineguianciee committed W j

jierson so closely connected with another branch of the day's proceedings mar afreet (he result of an election. * The Court wont on to say that there were, other irregularities alleged and in part proved. These irregularities taken together might have added some weiffat to that at Mnhirakau, but th« Court do not pronounce any opinion as to what result would have ensued had ft been obliged to consider the matter. We are compelled to decide this case upon the question of the (nullification or want of qualification of the respondent. We do not definitely determine the 'effect of (lie proved irregularities. For this reason, too, wo have not thought it necessary to order a scrutiny or to express. any opinion upon the nuinerong and dißcult questions as to the particularclaims to vole that have been challenged. Wo hold the election to be void, and shall certify to the Speaker accordingly. Mr. Ostler, who represented Mr. John' stone, for the petitioner, nt the givingof the Court's decision, suggested that each party should bo ordered to pay its own costs subject to respondent bearing the additional expense incurred by the reference of certain legal point* to the Full Court at Wellington. Mr. Finlay expressed his thanks to. the opposing counsel and accepted the offer, which the Court remarked to lie an exceedingly generous one.

Costs for the Full Court proceeding* were fixed at ,C2t, and an order was made in accordance with Mr. Ostler's suggestion.

At the request of the Registrar, Mr. V. W. Schramm, Mr. Ostler referred t» the question of a possible indemnity for John Burns Young: Mr. Justice Cooper replied that, aeefng that Young's evidence had been «» untrustworthy and unbelievable, th» Court had decided not to issue a certificate of indemnity.

Mr. Ostler then informed their Honors that the six months within which Young could he prosecuted had expired, but that the Registrar, acting on theadvice of the Crown Law Office, had already laid information against Youngs and would now take proceedings. The question has arisen as to tha eligibility of Mr. Jennings for candidature at the by-election for tho Taumaiumu seat. Authorities consulted thia morning express the opinion that, as it is not necessary for the candidate, to ha on the roll as nn elector of the district he actually seeks to represent in Parliament so long as ho is on the electoral tol of some other district, and as tho Court has decided that New Plymouth ia his place of residence, he will lie entitled to enrolment, upon declaration, on tlu» Taranaki electoral roll, from which ho obtained transference to the Tanmarumii roll last November. In such case. Mr. Jennings, as an elector of the NewPlymouth roll, wou'd be quite eligible as a candidate for tho Taumarunui or any other seat in New Zealand.