UNKNOWN.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Issue 3848, 3 July 1891, Page 2

UNKNOWN.

THE CASE BE^^^H Id the Masterton day (Friday), the against Masterton Borough tnittee was heard before Roberts, H.M. The petition are as follows: at the time of the election no Returning Officer the District, and that time and place was not given as the Act requires. the nominations were not the manner prescribed by That the name of a candidate was enteied upon theV ing papers, to wit,thenameof <fl VV. Dalryinple. (i.) That the J of a candidate was omitted fronfl polling paper, to wit, the nameß A. Pownall. (b.) That the <M poll was used for the account of the division of the B^H into wards. (6.) Tb the time of the ejee**Bl*'waß not gfl in the mannetprescribed by. M (7.) That the time and place <?■ election was not given*in toe prescribed by the Act. (8.) V there was only one polling-bo*~H the election instead of a poliing-ljfl in each ward. (9.) That the elecß was bad, inasmuch as the/ocal poll must be held ihe licensing election, and option poll taken was baaV^^^H Messrs Beard, ippeared for the Messrs B. S. Sunny to oppose,' ?^^^| Mr Beard,having read laid he did not propose iny length, as the ully borne out in the iroposed to call Mr ind after hearing evidence, ispects of the case would lh appeared for the letitioners excepting Mr. ehom Mr Skerrett wait appe^^H Mr Bunny maintained [uestion of the Returning tot within the Jourt, as denned by Section i.ct. Section 51 was very explioi ,nd tied the Court down to tl .negations contained in Section 6 vhich made no reference to Returning Officer. Mr Skerrett contended tkwa jourt had no power to strike ojjjfl [rounds set forth in tbo^j^^l was no timet^^^^^^^| Bunnv^^^^^^^^^^^J

BEbre no use wasting rt. * ntained that the dfot making the ' Mr Bunny, ed to hear the sworn, stated : I I Returning Officer kfasterton. I have lrning Officer foist. (The minutes of the Borough Council meeting showin g appointment were here pat in). I cectjuyiomination papers in my candidates for (The nominaalso put in). The the form in which they to me. Mr Pownall in the form List produced out in April, IS9O. Since time the Borough has been into Wards, and the Wards hare been prepared. An election for the Borough of Hhsterton was held under the Ward HTon the 14th or 15th May. I Hvertiaer? the election of the Licensing Hmmissioners. The advertisemeut Hoduced is the one inserted. 1 Bosted notices of the nomination Ktside my office. A pencil mark through the name of Mr it was posted up. I but hare poll. Messrs Feist, Heron, and G BrWoodroofe were declared to be elected. The names of the candidates were attested as being on the roll. No presiding officer for the local option poll has been appointed by theßorough Council. I have taken the position

|myself, but have received no written (appointment. I have appointed roylaelf presiding officer. L Mr Beard: How? I took the poll, that's I call my appointment. Beard : That is, you have acted officer. Hmtoeßs#Yes, examined by Mr Hawkins : \I was appointed Returning Officer for lha Licensing District in 1882. I have ever since acted as Returning Officer, and have ever since taken the local option poll. 1 have done every* thing necessary as returning anil presiding officer for the taking of the local option polls. My actions have never before been questioned. The potl7 excepting the local option, has annual. The local option poll ■tri-enmal. I made out three rolls ards frcm the Burgess Roll the names with red ink. Rolls are absolutely the one original roll, of Messts Dalrymple W. Perry and Joseph received a The nomination of came the day fixed for receiving May 22nd. (Mr Hawattention to the fact the words candidate or after the names on paper). Mr Fownall nomination on the 26tb, same day about it. I withdrawal was not in by the Act. He not care a d about : Speak up please. That is Mr Pownall's way of stating he wanted II I iiliii 11 to this attack

make an There I do election, was 0 nomination. Mr. Hawkins: I signed an Hpolutely blank nomination paper it to Mr. Thompson, of the Hmpire Hotel. I did not entrust Mr Hoompson with the nomination paper Hdo what he liked with. I will Hrear this. I thought I was nomiHtting Mr. Hessey, but I did not put his name because he was not Hresent. Mr. Thompson asked me to Hand and I refused, stating that Mr. Btensfly would probably stand. He Ptben asked me to fill in his nomiI nation gaper, and I did so. Thompson I may have Lad other nomination I papers. I trusted Thompson with ( the nomination paper. I was aware [ of the nomination of the candidates, f and voted at the election. I do not ganembercomplaining that Mr Hessey /■*\rteliofc a candidate. I knew before kibe election that the publican party ■were nominating the five gentlemen kready mentioned. I was aware Hiat Mr Pownall was nominated, but ■heard of no little meeting of the Hablican party about the retirement ftlfa candidate. ■ Mr Pownall: I was a third party Recording to the Daily. W Mr Skerrett: These questions cf ■detail are quite irrelevant. We are ■not here to discuss party gossip, ■i MrJElawkina submitted that the

MM&faas quite relevant, as His to decide whether t e carried out fairly and : How can it matter Mr Powuall to with-

[that the Returning Officer was ' appointed to no particular Licensing District. The Act provided that the Council should appoint a Eeturning Officer for a particular district. Here a Returning Officer had been appointed, but for no particular district The statute required the appointment of a Eeturning Officer for a particular district, and this had not bean done in the present case. It was then to be considered how far this affected the election. What was meant by the Act was that there should be a substantial election. If the person who conducted the election was not properly appointed, all the checks for the proper government and conduct of the psople were destroyed. At the election any person might have answered the question on the voting papers. The election wis not conducted in accordance with statute. The matter was an exceedingly important one. It appeared to him that His Worship would have to say, " Here is a substantial irregularity, and the checks produced by Statute are gone." The nest point was that the names of the candidates were not in accordance with the Act, in that the wordß "candidate" and " elector" were not inserted in the nomination papers. The language of the Statute was quite plain. He admitted the objection was purely one of form, but it was highly technical. His Worship had not to consider the prop-iety of the requirement of the Act, The Legislature had chosen to require that the words " elector " and " candidate " should be inserted. Perhaps it was intended that it should assist the Eeturning Officer in showing what was the proper form. He would cite cases to show that the Act had to be complied with. In the case Mather v Brown in the Law Reports, Common Pleas Division, the language of the Act was not complied witb, and the objection was upheld by the Chief Justice, who accepted the abbreviation of a name as a misnomer. In the same Reports there was the case Monks versus Jackson, which showed that where the Statute required a particular form, it was imperative that it should be fully complied witb. The case Gothard v Clark was indistinguishable from the present, in that a wrong number was inserted on the nomination paper, and the nomination was held to be informal. It had been argued by Sir Edward James that the literal meaning of the Act should not be complied with, but the Justices held that the form of the Act should be strictly complied with. In Law Times there was also a case which strongly supported his contention. Mr Justice Field's judgment in this case was very pointed. There were two Victorian cases which concurred with the construction put upon the Act in England. To sum np Mr Skerrett submitted that the provisions of the Statute were clear and must be strictly complied with. If one part of the form were permitted to be omitted, why not other portions? In reference to Mr Pownall's withdrawal he pointed out it was plain Mr Pownall did not withdraw from his candidature in terms of section 15 which stated that the withdrawal must be signed and delivered by the candidate. It was therefore submitted that Mr Pownall did not retire because he did. not himself deliver. Further, in the withdrawal the words were omitted "for which I was nominated" and therefore he was still a candidate and was omitted from the voting paper, and he (Mr Skerrett) submitted that in strict compliance with the clause his Worship had no option in the matter. Mr Beard following submitted that his Worship had merely to deal with the objectsassetforthinthe petition.lf his Worship would look at the nomination paper of Mr G 8 W Dalrymple he would see several particulars in which it differed from the form given, in that it was addresed to the xteturning Officer for the Borough of Masterton instead of the Eeturning Officei tor the Licensing District of the Borough of Masterton. Therefore the nomination was invalid. A far more serioas objection, however, was that the nomination was signed in blank by Mr T. E. Chamberlain in anticipation that the paper would be filled np by Mr Jno Hessey, and therefore Mr Chamberlain was under the opinion he was nominating Mr Hessey. In support of this moint Mr Beard cited a case In all fours with the present in support of his contention that the nomination was invalid. Such being the case not only was Mr Dalyrmple's nomination invalid, but the whole of the election was invalid. The object was to declare the j whole election void, and his Worship would recognise the Justice of this if he glanced at the figures polled and would see that if the votes polled by Mr. Dalrymple had been distributed the result would have been different. Another point was that the wrong roll had been used, the borough having been divided into wards. Up to 28rd April, 1891, the Borough ( of Masterton was not divided, but atter this date a new roll had been prepared under which the Borough Council had held an election, and properly so. His learned friend might submit that the rolls were identical, the wards being co-terminus, but he (Mr. Beard) submitted His Worship had nothing to do with that, and must declare | the election invalid.

Air Pownall said they proposed to arguo clauses 6 and 9 only in the petition, which were closely allied and related to the Local Option. What they wished to submit was that the local option poll and the licensing election must be taken together and therefore if the loc*l option poll fell be contended that the licensing election must be bad. Under section 48 of the 1881 Act it was stated tbat a presiding officer must be appointed by the Chairman. In the Amendment of 1882 it was stated that the presiding officer must be appointed by the local body having jurisdiction at ibe time. This had not been done as was shown in the Town Clerks evidence. Therefore the whole of the Local Option poll .fell tc the ground because the ,iegulakjon of Local Elections Act. applied Local Option poll. It whs clearly by the Act tbat the Local poll and the Licensing Elecmust be carried out simultaneKsly, and therefore the badness of the Hfeal Option poll prejudiced the fairPA of the licensing election. Further* more no provision had been made by I the Aci for scrutineers remaining in thebooth,buton this point he would not say much. One more point was that the advertiseuosat of the election was bad, as the advertisement referring to the Local Option poll sha-«i hive been separate from the Licensing Election signed by different