THE LICENSING PETITION.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3849, 4 July 1891, Page 2

THE LICENSING PETITION.

On resuming yesterday 'afternoon, Mr Bnnny maintained that the Court had no jurisdiction in clauses six to nine in the petition. The Court had only to deal with the election, and not with the system of taking the poll or tbe question of the Returning Officer. The position stated by him bad not been attacked by learned counsel on the opposite side. It was admitted in evidence that Mr Brown was the Returning Officer under the Act and that he bad acted not only as Returning Officer, but as presiding officer in the taking of the lqoal option poll. By the Licensing Act Amendment Act, 1882, section 5, the local body having authority throughout the district had power to elect a Returning Officer. Under the Itegula • tion of Local Elections Act 1876, tbe term " Returning Officer" mean); person appointed under jthe local authority, and ho fresh appointment " was" required. The only objection taken was that Mr Brown wasl Bot appointed tg any particular -* l — bad been appointed district, ir u*. - ■- what by the Borough Council, w other district could he have been appointed than to the Masterton Licensing District ? He therefore submitted that the Returning Officer was duly appointed, and his position could not be attacked, If there, was any defect, it bad been cured by time. But not been shown that there was a defect. So fat as Mr Macara, one of thof petitioners. he should be one^|||^tfH^^^^^^^^^^Uj|

same point as bad been raised today had been decided l>y Mr Justice Denniston in Ohristchurch last month. (Mr Bunny here read the judgment of Mr Justice Dennistob.) Mr Skerrett protested against the quotation ot Mr Bunny. Mr Bunuy : I leave it with the Court. I will not appeal to my learned friend as to the quotation. Mr Skerrett: 1 only want your authority. Mr Bunny : That is for the Court to decide. Mr Skerrett here spoke in a sort of an undertone to Mr Pownall. Mr Bunny: Am T to bo interrupted by counsel like this ? Mr Skerrett: I was not speaking to you. I was addressing Mr Pownall. I wish you would not keep your ears so widely open. Mr Bunny : You must remember I am sensitive. Mr Bunny, proceeding, referred to the fifth point raised in the petition. In sub section 4of Bection 13 in the Act of 1881 the form for the conducting of elections was prescribed. It was left for the Eeturning Officer to decide whether there should be one or more polling booths at an election. The Returning Officer had also to take the names from a ratepayers' roll which together made a roll for a separate district. In section 18 of the Jtiegulation of Local Elections Act, 1376, the Returning Officer's duties were clearly defined. The Eeturning Officer was fully empowered to use the rolls in his possession. With regard to the sixth ground, he maintained that the question of the appointment of a presiding officer could 'not be raised. Mr Brown had taken pollß on the question of local option for some years. On this ground alone the contention of counsel for the petitioners must fail. Section 48 of the Licensing Act of 1881 provided that the Chairman should appoint any person be might think fit as presiding officer. By section 12 of the Amendment Act ot 1882 the appointment of a presiding officer was left with the local body having anthority. There was no doubt but that Mr Brown had acted in the capacity of returning ofiicer by appointment from the Council. He was therefore both returning and presiding officer. Mr Brown in the last election had adopted the same means as in previous elections, which were quite in accordance with the Act. His position could not now be attacked. It could not therefore be contended that the Returning Officer had not been properly appointed. The ninth ground alleged that the scrutineers were allowed to be in the booth during the taking of the local option poll. Section 25 of the Regulation of Local Elections Act, 1875, empowered the Returning Officer to admit as many scrutineers as he might think fit. He confidently submitted that the prayerß of the petitioners should be refused. Mr Hawkins said ho would not ' refer to isolated cases. He would refer to the principles upon which cases had been decided by Courts of law. In the case Henry v Armitnge ! quoted by his learned friend Mr ' Skerritt there was a marked irregularity. This also occurred in the case Monks v Jackson. In the cases cited there were absolute and substantial reasons for adhering to the \ letter of the Act. But in this case ' the words "candidate" and "elector" could not have possibly misled electors. A great deal had been said i abont the licensing district. He would ask how was the licensing district defined by the Government? The Governor had designated it by Gazette. The designation, according to the letter of the law,was"Boroughof i Masterton." If his learned friends wanted a pound of flesh.let them have ' r a pound of flesh. In a case in Lan- , cashire a name had been left out of a nomination paper, and yet the Queen's Bench had decided that it did not invalidate the nomination. Isolated caseß he pointed out were not reliabld ! or trustworthy. What should guide His Worship were the general piinciples laid down by English Judges. Justi:e Brett had said in the case of a nomination paper which was defective that if this defect had not misled, the election should not be declared void. In another case Lord GoJevidge had expressed himself distinctly on the point. He then came to a case in which numbers of errors had been made in a rate form, ard yet the Judges had set aside the rigid compliance with forms, and stated that they would not allow a defect to invalidate an election. This was a Court of conscience. His Worship should be guided by a consideration of equity and good conso'ence. The Regulation of Local Elections Act said that, "any other irregularity tending to defeat the fairness of the election," should be decided by the Magistiate. The Magistrate bad to decide whether an irregularity had occurred which would defeat the fairness of the election. He would also call attention to the judgment of Judge Denniston. In the Christchurch case technical objections had been raised. An attempt had been made to test the validity of the election on the appointment of the Returning Officer. His Honor had said that it would be very unsatisfactory if the election was to be upset on a te.hnicality unearthed by counsel at a last moment. In the present case the points raised were all ties, A suggestion had been made that the nomination of Mr G. S. W. Dalrymple would upset the election. He hardly knew how to deal with i this case. It appeared that Mr Thompson, the licensee of the Empire I Hotel, went to Mr Chamberlain, and asked him to fill in a blank form. But if a man gave another a blank cheque was it to be wondered at if the cheque waß filled in for £IOO instead of £1 ? (laughter). And this was a blank form. Mr Thompson had given the blank form to Mr Cbamberlain.and he should put up with the of his act. Id came with very "bad form that these persons should now object to a man put up by themselves. Was the Returning Officer to go behind every man and apk him if the name was authorised ? Why was this ■, point raised ? Would a petition have been filed at all if the publicans had not been defeated ? He thought not ! It was well-known that there were

the greatest irregularities in all elections, and if they supported technicalities there would be no end to elections. He had tp commend the ingenuity of his learned friends. They had sprung the question of the n6rainat|bn upon thp Court. He would like to call atteatiou to the eylls whiah would • -'—► ion were upset, Wh*t occur it thistnov.. •■'•'-.»*!>« would happen?, The petite... believed the powc:r of nominating a new Com mittee mmld rest with the Governor. But Wiat about their vain hopes ? Cardinal fanning had arid— Mr SkerreH: I^nust object to this. Cardinal ctjgpt be p roperj^^^^^^^^^^^^^^l

wheu, partnrs drink traffic in believed the Zealand was also a to the trade. Though., the party had something to dp Domination of live candidates they of course nothing to do with : present case (laughter). Gould Worship doubt for a moment who forward these nominations? now these people came; before the Court and asked that their own wrong might be put right. The election was fought out at the ballot box, the petitioners now came dirty, miserable to him that his learned like a of jackdaws, chimney wich their nests asked His Worship not to to it (laughter). He His Worship would kindle and that the business of the Borough would proceed without interruption from auch a peculiar source. Mr Skerrett was about to reply, when Mr Hawkins objected. Mr Skerrett: I claim a right to argue the case as if I was in the Supreme Court. Mr Bunny : Mr Skerrett comas from town and tries to ride over us small fry. Mr Skerrett, proceeding, stated that the address of Mr HawkuXwa* I not quite creditable. The J had to be decided upon thfi issue, and hot upon the consideration V of publicans or temperance people. S Mr Hawkins : Is this a point of ' law? The Bench : You will confine yourself to law, Mr Skerrett. Mr Skerrett proceeded to state that * Mr v Hawkinß had unfairly quoted , y authorities in general. ... i Mr Bunny here interrupted. A Mr Skerrett: This is just like temperance people; they cannot stair, Jfl an open discussion. / /^H

Proceeding, Mr Skerrett conte'nr ']fl that if the name of Mr Fownall L __fl been withdrawn when it outghfr have been, His Worship* had cretion whatever. On five points his ' Worship had no discretion but to declare the election void if the allegations had been proved. On the sixth poir* 'he only question to be decided was that of irregularity. His Worship had nothing to do with the consequences oE declaring an election void. The Governor would proceed to nominate a Committee.

Mr Hawkins: I differ with youA there. V

Mr Skerrett: I know you do. You always have on this point. The mandatory argument raised by him had not been answered by his learned: friend. He pointed out that- the"! Oamaru election had been declared void. v

Mr Beard contended that Mr Hawkins had quite unwittingly drawn a red herring across the scent. The Governor had not designated the licensing district the "Borough of Masterton," but the "Borough of Masterton Licensing District." \

This concluded the argument/Nand the Bench announced that it. reserve its deoision, as the pointed raised would require careful consideration. . :■>■■■