RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4967, 10 December 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS BAY.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., E.M.) The Kauaeranga Riding Election

Petition.

The case for adjudication was on a petition, lodged under the Eeguktion of Local Elections Act, 1876, by Wm. Deehle and others against the return of D. W. Pitkethley to the County Council as representative of the ELauaeranga Riding. Mr Miller appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Lush for Pitkethley.

Mr Miller said the petition was under section 48 of the Act, which provided that the E.M. had power to declare elections void or the election of any candidate invalid. Section 50 provided that any person who voted without being entitled to do so should have their votes struck off the poll. The present proceedings were taken because certain persons had voted who were not entitled to do so in terms of the Act, as 17 of the 18 names objected to had not paid their rates, and the 18th appeared to a case of personation.

William Smith, sworn, stated that he was returning Officer at the late Kauaeranga election for the County Council, the petitioner, Wm. Deeble, was a candidate at the electioD, as was also D. W. Pitkethley, the election took place, and D. W. Pitkethley was one of those declared elected. Produced the roll used by the Poll Clerk at the election. The name of Hugh Farrelley did not appear on the roll, but that of Bernard Farrelley did ; a person named Hugh Farrelley appeared, said that he was represented on the roll as Bernard Farrelley, and demanded to vote, he was allowed to do so. Mary Ardern, Wm. BJser, J. M. Barron also voted. At this stage

The Bench asked the Returning Officer if this was bis or his Poll Clerk's roll, and the witness replied that it was the Poll Clerk's. The Bench decided that the Keturning Officer could not swear to the accuracy of the roll marking.

John Ro^s deposed that he had acted as scrutineer for W. Deeble at the ELau* aeranga election, produced his marked roll. Mary Ardern ; Wm. Baker, J. M. Barrou, Wm, Brinn, Joseph Dunn, Wm. Hawk, J. A. James, J. Jewett, Jos. Latham, Wm. Newman, A. O'Buglien, Wm. Riley, Mrs Robinson, W. Towers, J. Ryan, E. ;Scott, and B. Skene, had voted. Hugh Farrelley presented himself to vote in respect of the name on the roll of Bernard Farrelley, and he was allowfd to vote. —To the Bench—Did not know any Bernard Farrelley in the district.

E. W. Hollis, Secretary of the Thames County Council and Collector of Rates, produced the roll for Kauaeranga Riding used at last election. The rates of Mary Ardern were not paid on the 12th November ; Win. Baker was also in default. J. M. Barron and Wm. Brinn had not paid their rates, but Joseph Duan had paid his on 11th November. Wm. Hawk, J. A, James, T. Jewett, J. Leatham, Wm. New* man, A. Buglein, and W. Riley (there were three with somewhat similar names on the roll) had not paid their rates. Mrs Robinson paid her rates on the day of election. W. Towers, J. Ryan, E. Scott, and B. Skenehad not paid their rates pre j vious to the day of election. The name of Hugh Farrelley did not appear on the roil. He did not compile the roll—a person was specially appointed by the Council to do so.

Cross-examined by Mr Lush: Hugh. Farrelley paid the rates and stated that the name Bernard Farrelley was a mistake, as it should have been Hugh. Mr Miller asked if he had not given enough evidence to justify the Court in ordering a scrutiny. Mr Lush called

Win. Riley, who swore that he paid his rates before, and voted at, the last election.

Mr Lush said with regard to B. Skene that he was the holder of a miner's right, and was therefore entitled to vote on account of it.

A. Craig deposed that he was a scruti neer at the election, and B. Skene entered the booth to vote on bis miner's right, as he stated that his rates were unpaid, but the Beturning Officer told him he had a qualification on the roll, and he could vote on it.

The Bench said the man was not entitled to vote for property, as his rates were unpaid, but he was entitled to vote upon the miner's right. In the case of Hugh Farrelley Mr Miller called J. C. M. Gibson, who, on beiug sworn, stated that he had placed the name of Bernard Farrelley on the Kauaeranga Riding roll owing to having received a list of names of applicants who desired to be enrolled. The qualification was a lease of a section on Block 27. Did not know a Bernard Farrelley in the district. G. W. Bull deposed that he knew Hugh Farrelley. Also knew a Bernard Farrelley, a new chum, who met with an accident at Kopu. He was on the Thames in February of this year. The Bench said that there were four names allowed without Farrelley's, and as the majority of Pitketbley over Deeble was nine, and those objected to were eighteen—even allowing the vote of Farrelley, it left thirteen to be struck off. This was sufficient for a scrutiny. The Clerk of the Court then opened the sealed parcel of ballot papers, and their perusal showed the thirteen names remaining as those objected to, to have voted as follows ! —

Single votes for Deeble alone ... 4 Single votes for Pitkethley ... 4 Voter for each ... ... ... 1 while five papers shewed that those challenged had voted for neither Deebioor Pitkethly. Thus five votes should be struck off on account oi" each name leav* ing the position as it previously was. The petition was therefore dismissed.

A scientist says that the reason of kissing is because the teeth, jaw bones, and lips are full of nerves, andivhea the lips aaeefc an electric current is generated. He should explain why it is the electric current does not work when he kisses his mother-in-law to please his wife. Science caDnot npset our religious notions about kissing.