RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2231, 23 July 1891, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Temuka—Tuesday, July 21st, 1891. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] CIVIL CASES. Jeremiah Tangney v. J. J. Griffin —Claim £1 10s 6d, Judgment for plaintiff by default with costs. E. Pilbrow v. Woollcombe & Clulee —Claim £2 18s 6d. Mr Cargill put in a power of Attorney to represent defendants, who paid 21s into Court in satisfaction of the claim. This was a case in which plaintiff had been appointed agent for defendants, and instructed to eject a certain tenant from premises owned by them. The necessary steps were taken but complications of title arose and the case went on for several months. In the meantime there was a great deal of correspondence, several visits to Timaru, and also other work done. The charge the plaintiff submitted was ridiculously low. Mr Cargill submitted that the plaintiff was in an unfortunate position. There had been a great deal of work to be done, and much of it unremunerative. The guinea tendered as payment was all or more than he was entitled to, but his remuneration, should have been looked for from commission on rents received, or the sale of the property. His Worship said that he should give judgment for 21s paid into Court. The work might have been worth more, but in default of an agreement as to remuneration he could do no more.

TEMUKA LICENSING ELECTION PETITION. His Worship then gave judgment in the matter of the Temuka Licensing Election petition :—This is an enquiry held under the provisions of subsection 6 of section 50 of “ The Regulation of Local Elections Act, 1876,” to

determine whether any irregularity occurred in the proceedings at the late election for the Teumka Licensing District, which tended to defeat its fairness. The petitioners allege—- “ (Ist) That the ratepayers’ roll directed by the statute to be the roll to be used at the said election was not used. (2nd) That ratepayers entitled to vote were not allowed to vote at the election. (3rd) That in consequence of the wrong roll having been used, a great number of persons entitled to vote were prevented attending and voting.” The roll used at the election was the county roll for the Temuka riding, which is conterminous with the Temuka Licensing District, and also contains within its boundaries three local bodies—(l) The Temuka Road District, (2) the Temuka Town District, (3) the Arowhenua Town District, Briefly stated, the petitioners contend that every ratepayer whose name appears on any rate roll within the Licensing District, whether a county roll, road district roll, or town district roll, is entitled to vote at the election of members of the Licensing Committee, and that the returning officer should have used the rolls of the three local bodies within the districts in conjunction with the roll of the county riding. The rolls of the ridings, as well as the rolls of the road districts and town districts in question, are derived from the valuation rolls prepared under the provisions of the Rating Act, 1882 and 1883, but whilst under the Counties Act, 1886, the

electoral roll of the former is prepared annually, and comes into force on the Ist July in each year, remaining in force until new rolls are again made up, the other local bodies may make use of the valuation roll as their , electoral roll, and may, while that roll is in force, make alterations therein from time to time, consequently new ratepayers ean at any time be added up to the eve ot an election in the road and town district?, who do not appear as electors on the roll of the riding until the new roll comes into force on the Ist of July in each year. There are then two sets of rolls for the Temuka district, necessarily varying from eacli other, inasmuch as the county roll contains names which may have been struck off the rolls of road and town districts, as properties changed owners, &c,, and the latter rolls the names of new owners, &e., which could not appear on the county roll till the Ist July following, the election taking place in May. ; To use these together is obviously obviously objectionable, and it seems plain that one or other, and not both sets in conjunction, must be the propercourse. The question is—Which ? Turning to the Licensing Act, 1881,? section 6, it is enacted that Licensing; Districts shall, as far as possible and convenient, be identical and conterminus respectively with:—(l) Undivided Boroughs; (2) Wards of Boroughs; (3) Ridings of Counties ; (4) Road Districts outside Counties; (5) Such other districts in parts Of the Colony not comprised within any

of the foregoing as may seem fitting. The Licensing District of Temuka is a Riding of the Geraldine County, and comes under the definition No, 3, as above. The Governor has, under Section 6 of “The Licensing Act, 1881, Amendment Act, 1882,’’ appointed the Geraldine County Council , the local body to have jurisdiction - throughout the Temuka Licensing " District, to make all necessary appointments and do all things required for the conduct of elections within this Licensing District. 1 (Gazette, 1883, page 108, 24th January, 1883.) By Sub-section 4 Section 13, of “ The Licensing Act, 1881,” the election of members of the Licensing Committees shall be conducted in the same manner as the election of members of boroughs, or county councils, of road boards are elected. That is to say, bearing in mind the subdivisions given in Section 6 of the Act abqve mentioned, the election in districts composed of undivided boroughs and wards of boroughs, in the same manner as the election of members of boroughs. t “ The elections in districts composed of ridings of counties, in the same manner as the election of members of county councils.” The elections in road districts outside counties, in the same manner as members of road boards are elected. The elections in. such other districts in the same manner as members of such other districts are elected. In the interpretation, Section 4, of the same Act, “ Ratepayers” includes all persons whose names ap- ■ pear on any ratepayers’ roll, as herein defined. Ratepayers’ Roll means a roll of county electors, or a burgess roll, or a ratepayers’ roll/ entitling “ the electors,” burgesses, or ratepayers (as the case may, be), within a “ riding of a county,” or' a road district, or any ward or other division thereof, to vote at elections of members of a borough council, county council, or road board respectively. From this I conclude that the election in the Temuka Licensing District, being a district composed of a “ riding of a county,” is to be conducted in the same manner as an election of members of county councils, and that a ratepayers’ roll means in this case a roll of county electors. Hence, the county roll was the correct roll for the Temuka Licensing District Election. The petitioners also allege (2) that ratepayers William Hyde (Temuka Road District), and James Hooper (Arowhenua District), were not allowed to vote. These names are not on the roll, on which, however, the names of “George” Hyde and “Joseph” Hooper appear. ? It does not seem, however, that either of these persons made any claim to be the persons on the roll as George Hyde and Joseph Hooper respectively, or that any such question was asked, or required to be asked, as permitted or required by Section 30 of “ The,, Regulation of Local Electionr Act)/ 1876.” The petitioners have in my opinion, to prove that any ir-' regularity occurred which tended to defeat the fairness of the election, and \tlje petition is dismissed, with costs! if. ■ ly’' T