THE TE AWAMUTU ELECTION ENQUIRY.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1940, 11 December 1884, Page 3

THE TE AWAMUTU ELECTION ENQUIRY.

Friday.— [Before. Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.j The enquiry into tho circumstances of the disputed town board election was held on Friday .it the Court-house, Te Awanmtu. Mr Greslmm appeared for the petitioners, and Mr Then. Cooper for the commissioners. The Clork read the petition and the notice in The Waikato Times notifying when the enquiry would be hold. Mr Gresham c.illed N. T. Maunder, clerk of the Wai pa County Council, but Mr Maunder was not present. Mr Cooper asked to see the copy of the subp<ena served on Mr Maunder, and declared it invalid, as it was not issued under tho hand of the Resident Magistrate, and therefore declared that he (Mr Maundei) was justified in not appearing. Mr Gresham claimed that as Mr Maunder appeared on the first healing under a similar subpeuna, he should lw\o attended this time, and asked if the court would allow him to prove if the names of the petitioners weie on the n>ll, which he could do. His Woiship ruled that this would be secondary evidence, and Mr Gresham asked for an adjournment. Mr Cooper objected to an adjournment. As the commissioners wee duly elected by the people, he contended that the onus of proof lay with the petitioners, and proper steps should ha\e been taken to compel the attendance of the witness. — Mr Gresh.im asked for an adjournment, as the election could be upset. — Mr Cooper contended that the court had no knowledge of that fact, and could not take it into consideration. The petitinneis did not take proper steps Id compel the attendance of the witness. He objected to an adjournment on another ground. He (Mr Cooper) sva.s refused an adjournment, not by Mr Gresham or the Court, but by the petitioners, and that it was at considerable inconvenience to himself that he attended tins day. It was clearly the fault of tho petitioners th.it the necessity for an adjournment arose. — Mr Gresham contended that no objection was made by tho petitioners to the fiisfc adjournment, that Mr Cooper got it at his own request, and that he fi\ed the date. His Worship said that it was he who h'\-ed the date, not Mr Cooper.— Mr GiCbham said the adjournment was fixed to suit his learned friend's convenience. They were to be dobaired from having the petition heard on technical ground*. If the petitions weie dismissed, the petitioueis would hoAfi to take proceedings under writ of "quo wan.uito " of tho Supiome Couit. Mr Cooper : Then take such proceeding-.. Mr Giesham : I wish to sa\e litigation. His Worship could not see why an adjournment should be granted, but would ha\e no objection if Mr Giesham could ai range with Mr Cooper. — Mr Gresham agreed to pay the expenses of the adjournment. Mr Cooper : Would you pay £30 ? Mi Gresham : Are those your expenses ? Mi Coouftr : Yes. Mr Giesham : Are you paid that by your client-- ? Mr Cooper : That is another matter. I object to .m adjournment under any circumstances. Tho Court said the case could go on, and perhaps Mr Maunder would come. This was agreed to, and the court adjourned foi five minutes, when Mr Gtosham got a subpirna signed by tho R M. and despatched it foi -civicc on Mr Maunder. On learning, the iollowing evidence was taken • — Hungeifoid Roche, swotn, disposed he had Leen appointed Returning Ofh'cei for the Te Awamutu Town IJoaid Election. He pioluced the declaiation lie made as leturning officer bofoic a Justice of the Peico ; ho made tho declaiation on the 2!) th October. He had lecened the nominations and enteied on the duties of his office before making the declaration. His Woiship said that this was a matter of hicgul.uity, but that in his opinion it did not dofe.it tho fail ness of tho election. The question with regaid to the declaration was then dropped. Witness continued : Ho lemcmbeied the day of nomination, the names of the cmdidates weie not posted at noon on tho dly of nomination, but weie posted by witness bi other on Monday; ho did not post them on the day of nomination, (S.itinda\ ) a-- two of tho candidate-! weic objected to by two otlioi candidates, and witness thought it was tho duty of the returning officer to --cc that the nominations were legal, and a-- he had no 1011, he dofened porting thorn until ho could get one. He got a 101 l before Mond iv, which he was informed was coirett, and if such was tho case the nominations weie coirect. He saw Mr Rutherfoid and had a conversation with him lelns candidatuic. Mr Coopei objected to the question as Mr Rutheiford was not a paity to the pstition, and the objection was upheld by the couit. Witness produced by Rutliei ford's nomination paper. Mi Kutliei foul's name appealed on the nomination papeis. Witness drew In-, pun through tho name of Mr Rutherfoid bofoie giving tho papers to volois. It was quite possible but not probable that he should have omitted to erase Mr Ruthei fold's name. Mr Giesham said it could not be pi oved that witness did not do .so unless the papers were opened. His Woiship said it was a little matter and could not have delayed the election — that the ciossing out a name could not delay the election inatciially. Witness continued : Hi 1 was l.ito on the day of the polling ; ho did not opin tho poll at !) a.m. Ho hid no reason t > d >übt the accuiacy of his watch. He wis told on anival that his watch was slow. Ho compaicd his watch with Soigoant Gillies' watch. Mr Giesham asked if Seigoanfc Gillies said his watch wasconoct. Mr C >oper said Mr Gresham .should know that such evidence was not admissible. Mr Giesham said lie did know it. Mr Cooper : Then w hy do you ask such a question ? It is simply absind. Witness continued : Some one, but he did not like to swear positively as to the name, said ho was in time. He found his watch was wrongandtherefoiodid not refer to it dining the day. He closed tho poll by Sergeant Gillies watch. After lie found his time was not the same as Sergeant Gillies', he did not use his watch but used Sergeant Gillies' watch, which ho kept on the table. He did not conip ire his watch with the servant's dm ing tho day. He opjned by his watch and closed by the bCigeant's. Mi Grosliam asked if he did not think that tho poll was not open tho full time preset ibed by the act. His Worship said that was for him to decide, and thought no better answer could be given than gnen by the witness. Witness said as far as ho nuclei stood the act, the \oting compaitment was constiucted piopeily. Mr Giesham asked if there were not two openings by which persons could gain ad- - imttaiicc. ■>— < Witness : No. Mr Gresham : Was there not a window ? His Worship .said theie must be a window to give light, and that by " opening " an entrance to the booth was meant. How could voters see how to vote if there were no window ? Witness continued : The window of the voting room was frosted ; some of the frosting may have been rubbed off. Voters asked witness if if they had to vote for five, and he ruled they were to vote for five ; could not recollect their names. Could not remember Mr Andrew telling him that ho (Mr Andrew) wanted to vote for only four. He ruled the papers informal, which had only four votes recorded. His interpretation of the act was that five names must be left uncancelled. Forty-six votes were rejected. Some for that reason, and soire were rejected because no names were erased— four or five. His attention was called during the polling to the ruling. William Samnel Rutherford, sworn, deposed : He remembered the day of polling. He was at the booth before 9 a.m. He knew his watch was correct, as he daily compared his time with the train time. He was present when several persons told the returning officer he was late. The returning officers watch was about thirty-five minutes slow. It was compared with Sergt. Gillies' time. Witness was present as scrutineer ; he was present when the poll was opened and when it was closed. It was closed by Serert. Gillies time. Could not say if anyone was prevented from voting by the poll not being opened at 9 a.m. The returning officer made a declaration before witness as a J.P. on the date named on the declaration, viz : the 29th October. Remembered Mr C. T. Rickit coming to vote just before the closing of the poll ; he did not get a voting paper. He had been in so.ne minutes before the close of the poll. He claimed tovote as he was in the room, but was not allowed as time was up before he got a paper. Saw the returning officer erase his (witness) name from eaoh paper before giving it to the voters, but some-

times it took sometime to find it. Witness did not think anyone could sco through the window of the voting compartment. By the Court : Ho had a roll that day, but could not say if it was a correct roll. Did not think anyone was allowed to vote who was not on the roll. Hugh Goodfellow wab allowed to vote for Goodfellow brothers who were on the roll. James Arthur Stichbury, sworn deposed that ho was present for a consideiable time during the polling. Was at the booth before it was opened. Had compared his watch that day with the telegraph time, aud it was only a quarter of a minute wrong. The door of the booth was not open at half past nine. Was present when the returning officer arrived. It was just half pabt nine when he got to the door. Heard several tell him he was late. Witness name was on the voting paper as a candidate. It was ruled last court day that he was not a candidate. Air Cooper objected to this matter as nothing to this effect was in the petition and this objection was upheld. Witness .-—Saw Mr C. T. Rickit, in the polling booth before it closed and heard him ask for his paper but lie did not get it. Mr J. H. Mandeno got a paper after Mr Rickit asked foi his. There was plenty of time in his opinion to have given Mr Rickit a paper, witness could have served half a dozen people in the time. Mr Gre&ham again leferred to the window, but the bench again ruled that it did not defeat the fairness of the election. Witness said his watch indicated tho same time as the watch by which the poll closed. That was six o'clock. His time was correct. The poll was not opened at 9 a.m. James Robinson Wright, sworn, de posed : After he had \ oted he was told if he had not voted for five his paper was informal. He then asked the Returning Officer if that was so, and he said yes. He voted for four. By Mr Cooper : He was a candidate and signed the second petition, but had resigned at that time. Mr Cooper handed in the resignation the witness had sent to the chamnan of the board, which b"re the date of the 17th November. Witness admitted that the letter and envelope \rae what he had posted, but said he posted them on the 15th before 5 o'clock. Robt. James Gillies, sergeant of police, sworn, said he was in the hall that morning. Mr Roche asked him the couect time. It was between ton and eleven o'clock. Went to the telegiaph office and found his watch couect, within half a minute. He returned and compared it with Mr Rochet watch. There was about 32 minutes diffeicnce. Before the poll closed the Returning Officer boriowed witnesses' watch. Had no i cason to doubt his watch keeping couect time. Nicholas Thomas Maunder, deposed : Ho was clerk of the Wai pa County Council. He pioduced the 101 l of the Rangiaohia Riding. He pioduced the names of the electois attached to the .second petition were on the county roll. The Mangapiko roll m,us pioduced, and proved that Mr Fiank Robinson Gibsons name was not on that roll, nor was the name of Mr Robert Wan en Roche (Mr Ruthei ford's seconder) on either 1011. This closed the case for tho petitioners. Mi Cooper said that the petition must be upset for t lie following reasons :—lst.: — 1st. Theio wa.s nothing to show that theie was a district, as no boundaiies wcie descubed. Gazette put in desciibmg the distiict. 2nd. Theie was n« pi oof befoio the couit that the peiMins petitioned against were candidate?. There is no pi oof that the poison petitioned against weie even elected, He quoted section 35 of the act m suppoit of this objection. The petition mu'-t fall thioughas the signatories were not piovod to be clcctoi-s under the act. Section 10. section 17 of the Town District-. Act defined who electors should be for a first election. Theio was no pi oof that those who signed tho petition weie electois under thu> section. Theio was no such name on the county l oil as James Ivobinson Wiight, it was 1 James R. W light, the same objection held against otheis. There was not a little of evidence before the couit that there was any connection bctw ecu tho numesof the signatories and tho names on the county 1011. He quoted " Mather appellant. Blown respondent" Anothei objection was that James Robnisnn Wnght who signed the petition could not do so, as lie could not be plaintiff and defendant, as the petition set fort that he was one of the candidates elected, and his resignation boie the postinatk of the 17th, November, and could not have been posted befoie that date, and he signed the petition on the 15th. Mr Gresham quoted section 53 of the Regulations of Local Election Act. The bench said that applied to an examination of the voting papeis and not to technicalities, Mr Giesham said that exactly boie on the case, as Mr Cooper said theie was no pioofof the respondents being elected, he (Mr Giesham) contended that the voting papeis were the best of proof that they weie elected on the decision of the letuining officer. And also that if his worship was not satisfied with the allegations set forlli, he could older a sciutiny of the voting papeis. He contended that in such a case a man could be plaintiff and defendant. As in Chancel y a man could be plaintiff, and in the same case could, if propei ty weie involved, and he was joined by his wife, be defendant. The comt ruled the cases not parallel. Mr Cooper said it was cleaily proved that Mr Stichbui y was not a candidate, four out of the six legal candidates weie elected, so that no great public wrong could have been done. Judgment was' reserved till the 10th inst., when it will be given in the Hamilton couit. — (Own Coi respondent.)

Mr Nortbcioft gave his decision in the R.M. Conit, Hamilton, yesteiday. He dismissed the petition on the following ground'; :— (I) That there was no proof of an election having taken place; (2) that there was no pi oof the peisons who .signed the petition wcmo electors within the monning of section 17 of the Town Districts Act. The decision carried costs.

MiSi ram I srss.— Hie most wonderful and marvellous success, in cases where persons .ire sick or pimni* away from a condition of nnser-ablene'-s that no one knows what ails them (profitable patients for do( tors), is obtained bj the use of Hop Hitters. Ihey begin to cure from the first dose, and kceo it ud until perfect health and strength is restored. Notice.