The Kaiteratahi Bridge Loan.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 490, 7 August 1890, Page 2

The Kaiteratahi Bridge Loan.

THE PETITIONERS DEFEATED. An enquiry was held before Mr Booth on Tuesday morning into the polling in connection with the proposed loan for the Kaiteratahi bridge. Mr Nolan appeared for the petitioners, Mr Sievwright for the County Council, and Mr Rees for the voters in the affirmative. Mr Nolan asked permission to make an emendation in a clerical error, J. Warren’s name being in place of F. J. Picsse. Mr Sievwright urged that this would be new matter. He did nut wish to take any factious objection, but would not ba justified in allowing any latitude in the enquiry. Mr Bees was entirely of that opinion. The objection was against John Warren and now it was sought to put in the name of an entirely

different person, and in the interests ot the public no such alteration could be made, the 48:h section being conclusive. Mr Nolan contended that the truth of the thing would not be affected, and quoted section 51.

His Worship said the alteration was a very material one, and then Mr Nolan said he would waive that, and asked that the fourth paragraph he amended so that the name would not affect the issge regarding the polling booth. The alteration was agreed to.

As Mr Nolan was about to address the C ourt, Mr Sievwright said before going into the enquiry they should ascertain how far it would lead to, it simply being a petition to make a roving enquiry by His Worship on all kinds of things. The enquiry should bo narrowed down to its proper limits in accordance with those subjects of enquiry as defined by the Local Elections Act of 1876. The Regulation of Local Elections Act was meant for a different purpose to that endeavored to be set up. The allegations must be within the scope of the first part of section 50 of the Act, and the charges must be specifically set forth. Not one of the objections could be said to come within the sections of the Act.

Mr Nolan objected to Mr Sievwright anticipating his case before he had an opportunity to establish it. Mr Sievwright wanted His Worship’s ruling as to whether Mr Nolan could seek to establish a case, when, according to his contention, an enquiry into such varied charges could not be allowed by the Act. He quoted section 3 of tbe the Amending Act of 1888, to show that the objection in regard to the polling booths could have no effect. In regard to the returning officers voting, he said the Act was clear that every ratepayer shall exercise his vote, whether by recording it, or abstaining from voting, in the latter case the vote being against the proposal. In regard to the objection that “ others,’’ alleged not to be entitled to vote, did vote, there must be names specifically mentioned before there could be any enquiry into that phase of the case. Mr Nolan did not propose to reply to Mr Sievwright at that stage, taking it for granted that His Worship would permit him to open hie case. His Worship replied in the affirmative. Mr Nolan said that the petitioners contended that the majority of those who would be rated for this loan were against the proposal. That the poll as it now stood ™ a ztuffed poll. Mr Rees: That is a matter concerning the merits of the case. An argument ensued as to whether the wrong date on the voting paper rendered the election invalid. Mr Rees challenged Mr Nolan on the point, contending the objection was futile.

Mr Sievwright said that just brought in his original objection that Mr Nolan wanted an enquiry on general grounds which would take up a very wide scope, and not be specific. Mr Rees argued that if the body of the voting paper was correct and merely the date wrong—even if it were left blank—they would not be invalid, unless some printer not authorised by the governing body had printed ballot papers and those had been supplied to voters and put into the ballot box. That would be fraud aud would vitiate the electioo if it were proved. His Worseip disallowed the objection regarding the ballot papers. Mr No'an said the next point was a stronger one, that Returning Officers had appointed deputies. It had been agreed to admit the formal evidence such as advertising. He contended that the Chairman appointed by the County Chairman should be the person to act as returning officer in each riding or subdivision. Mr Sievwright had referred to section 7 of the Ac', whereas it was section 35 that applied. He quoted sections 6,7, and 8, to prove that the local body should appoint a permanent returning officer, and if he could not attend a substitute must be appointed, n it a deputy. Messrs King and Orr had no power to appoint deputies. If they could not conduct the election themselves it was their duty to apply to the County Chairman for him to appoint substitutes. According to the Act a poll must be taken in each riding affected and not outside it. Only Waikohu and Ormond Road Districts were affected, and he submitted that those were the only places in which a poll could be taken, tbe poll in Gisborne not being allowable. This was worse than in a general election having a cab to bring voters—in this case the booth was brought to the voters. That was unfair and jf they wanted to vote they must go either to

Ormond or Waikohu, and they were n 0 likely to do that. Mr Rees: Then the majority of voters would be struck out. Mr Nolan, continuing, quoted farther to prove that the Act of 1888 was not applicable to the raising of money under the Local Loans to Local Bodies Act. Mr Rees: If the bridge is not any stronger than that argument I am airaid it will be too weak to carry many people. Mr Nolan: I do not think it will carry many people with the money they are going to spend on it, Mr Nolan, continuing, raised the objection 'hat under subsection 1 section 18 of tbe Regulations Act the booths at Ormond and Waikohu were not proper polling booths. Mr Rees contended that the Court had no jurisdiction in this respect. Mr Nolan eaid there was a misunderstanding as to the section quoted. Mr Rees : “ All right when understood." (Laughter.) Mr Nolan: This petition will be " all right when understood.” (Laughter.) His Worship eaid there must be something specific to show why the booths were not proper polling booths. Mr Nolan contended that it was quite sufficient to say they were not proper booths. It was for His Worship to enquire into it. Mr Bees having commented on the sections, His Worship agreed that Mr Nolan must show that the state of the polling booths tended to affect the fairness of the election. Mr Nolan said he would bring evidence on that point. Mr Sievwright again urged that this waa constituting His Worship a roving commission. Mr Nolan (getting warm) Baid counsel for the County was trying to set up that he (Mr Nolan) had no right even to open his case, while Mr Sievwright could go on meeting the case before it had been heard.

Mr Sievwright said he was only trying to confine the petitioners to some grounds of objection. His Worship said Mr Nolan must say why he objected to the booths. Mr Nolan said the objection was that there was not more than one inner apartment. Mr Sievwright said that should be set out in the petition. Mr Bees said he must make formal dissent to objections not specifically set out. They could not anticipate such objections—they had no notice of thia objection in regard to the booths. Such general assertions ought not to be admitted. If auch charges were allowed, the objection in regard to the district might be brought on in the same way. Mr Nolan submitted that under sections 48 and 51 tbe charges were sufficiently specific for Hie Worship to enquire into. His Worship said the objection was so indefinite that the other side could not bs expected to understand it. Mr Nolan said the other side should coms prepared to show that the booths wore proper ones. Mr Rees : Then all the petitioners have got to do is to say the election is void, and we must come here and prove that it is not 1 Mr Nolan said it was for His Worship to say whether there was sufficient proof. Mr Rees: He has so little confidence in his own case that he leaves it to your Worship. (Laughter.) Mr Nolan said he was so confident in his case that it was only His Worship's decision that concerned him. His Worship: I hope you do not think I am biassed ? Mr Nolan did not say that. Mr Nolan went on to contend that persons who had no right to vote had voted, ana an argument ensued between Mr Bees and the petitioners’ counsel, which bad not been decided when the luncheon adjournment was made. On resuming. Mr Nolan continued his argument, submitting that if hie Worship was satisfied the returning officers had voted he must rule that the election was bad. Messrs Bees and Sievwright were prepared to admit that Messrs Orr and King were appointed returning officers aud they had appointed Messrs Ingpen and Quigley as deputies; also that the returning officers voted. The position then was that the first point iu the petition was overruled, the second was left for legal argument, the third was struck out, evidence would be called on the fourth, and in the sixth Mr Nolan said he would omit “and others.” In reply to Mr Sievwright His Worship said he would like to hear evidence before going further into the legal points. Messrs Rees and Sievwright admitted that Mr Piesse had acted aa deputy at Gisborne. Mr Rees said the polling booths used at Ormond and Karaka were the same as those used for nil County and general elections. Mr Nolan said Mr Rees had been misinformed io regard to the one at Ormond. A. Skillicorn, one of tbe scrutineers, deposed that there was only one compartment io the Ormond booth—there were others, but they were looked up. The voters recorded them opposite the doorway. There was a table and a kind of a desk between which there waa a passage, but there was no screen to divide them from the returning officer and scrutineer. To Mr Rees: Took no interest in the election, and did not ascertain how anyone voted. If he had stood up be might have seen how persons voted. Did not see anyone stand up and look, and so far as he knew no one in the room had ascertained how anyone voted. Would require to stand up to see because the desk at which they recorded their votes was higher than the table. Had heard no one complain. To Mr Sievwright: Did not know anyone voted. Supposed that as a matter of fact there was secrecy in the voting. Mr Nolan said that would be the petitionera* case.

Mr Bees acknowledged that Mr Nolan had made the best case he could for the petitioners, but the materials were not very good, and he claimed that the petition must be rejected on all grounds. The two Acts, tha Loans to Local Bodies and the Regulation of Local Elections, were bound up to soma extent, and though the latter was not on all fours with the former it waa called into use to provide machinery for the working of the other Act. There were two questions to consider—had the law been fulfilled and had good faith been carried out. The thing waa very clear by the Act. Had the time of polliug been within proper hours, or had there been intimidation, false name of candidate or voters misled by false papers being used to stuff the ballot box, or any other irregularities by which the people had not a fair opportunity to give their voices on the proposal ? If it were shown there were anything unfair then His Worship might direct that the poll be taken again. Thia was the second time it had been before the Court—

Mr Nolan : It was not before any Court before; the first poll was so bad, that the majority decided to take it over again. Mr Rees: Wall, the majority then showed their good sense, and the minority have not showed their good sense. (Laughter.) Every care had been taken in the holding ot the poll. I: would be impossible to absolutely fulfil the technicalities of tha ’two Acta, and they had just to mike them fit aster as was possible. In some instances the sections were antagonistic, but tha Act provided for the people fairly giving th nr votes within specifisd times and it that bad not been done the petitioners might ask to have it sat aside. Now, what did they allege? That the voting papers had bean dated 1980 1 Was not that objection a striving to clutch at straws to defeat the poll. The poor wretch who was drowned tbe other day had no straws to clutch at, but there were persons who did not seem to care about tha danger of crosing tbe river so long as their pockets were not touched. Then it was objected that those who acted as returning officers were not entitled to vote. Nothing was said in the subsection referred to except in regard to the fairness of the proceedings. Supposing they had not power, had anything bean said regarding the fairness of the poll ? Not a word had been suggested in that respect. His learned friend admitted be put nothing on anyone except under subsection 6 Mr Nolan : The last objection was under subsection 2. Mr Bees: His Worship has ruled it oan't be taken under that section, Mr Nolan: It oan ba taken.

’ Mr Rees: What the nse of saying that when the Court gays it cannot ? Mr Nolan: The Magistrate has not ruled that way. His Worship: Well, I rule that way. Mr Beta continued. As to the objection that the returning officer could not vote, it was perfectly clear the returning officer could only give a casting vote, but the returning officer wae the Chairman of the County Council. There might be five persons acting as returning officers, as Messrs King and Orr had done, and how could they give a casting vote ? They must be ratepayers in the district, and the Act allowed that every ratepayer should be entitled to vote in such riding. Could you by asking a man to act M returning officer compel him to lose his ▼ote. These gentlemen were almost compelled to act as returning officers. Was it reasonable that because a man undertook to perform a public duty he should lose his ▼ote on a matter that concerns him as a ratepayer ? In addition to his rights as an individual, if a returning officer, so-called, did not vote for the work, the vote still counted in favor of the negative side. In a general election A might vote for one candidate, B for another, while C and D perhaps could not vote at all, but C and D did not count as voting against, as it would be in this case. Say there were nine County Councillors, each averaging three votes; all wanted a certain work done, and because they were obliged to take up public duties, according to the argument for the petitioners they could not vote, and the whole work might be stultified, and the public benefit sacrificed. No Court would read the Act in that way. His Worship said the point that presented “••If to him was whether the chairmen could appoint deputies. v Mr Rees contended that it could be done, but as it was not attempted to show that this unfairly affected the poll the point was shut out. Ai to > polling place being in Gisborne the central office ' was always deemed to be in the district—the greater Included the less, and the central office was for all purposes a part of the district. It had been stated that if there had been no such place, ratepayers would have been compelled to go twelve miles to record their votes—that would be a manifest unfairness. It was the duty of the looal body to see that as many as can should have the privilege of voting. As to the alleged improper condition of the booths, the complaint concerning Kamke bad been aban. doned, and in regard to Ormond Mr Skillieoro’s evidence showed that no one had seen how anyone had voted. The Act was passed for the benefit of the public, and it seemed to him that it was the duty of the Court to uphold it so long as everything had been done fairly, and that mere technical objections would not bo allowed to defeat the wishes of ths people to have this work carried out for the Benefit of the district. The bridge wee a very necessary one. Within the last few weeks a man bad been drowned at the place, and only that morning one of the returning officers in attempting to ride across to attend that Court, had got np to his shoulders in th* water. The absence of the bridge was a danger to life, commerce was impeded, and the settlement of the country prevented. The people, knowing this, had deliberately given ther votes for the building of the bridge, and he was sure neither this nor any other Court would stultify that decision because a few men said they would not allow the bridge to be erected—in every sense selfishness or stubbornness. He spoke strongly on the matter, because when the people had shown their willingness to take the burden on themselves, in accordance with law and in all fairness, it was sought to forbid the public benefit being done. They bad taken every precaution they could, and now asked this Court not again to put them to the expense and annoyances of another poll. He asked the Court, unless it felt an compelled by extreme law, not to declare the election void, to allow the current of public opinion to take its way, and let this benefit to the whole district be carried out as the people desired it to be done. Mr Sievwright said he need say little after Mr Bees’ elaborate address. Not one point raised by the petitioners had been substantiated. He then dealt more minutely wiifa tbe points as to the appointment of returning officers and the objection that they had voted. In reply to Mr Sievwright His Worship Mid be did not consider it necessary for Mr Quigley to be called. Mr Nolan contended that His Worship was bound by the procedure dictated by the Act, and if the election had been carried out in a loose way that was sufficient proof that there had been unfairness. Mr Bees, he ssid, had first argued that the chairmen were not returning officers and then that they were. They had agreed to act and did act as returning officers. He submitted that the appointment of deputies must be made by ths permanent returning officer, and the Act being infringed open there must be unfairness and the Court should decide accordingly. Mr Bees said Mr Nolan could not ask His Worship to take Supreme Court jurisdiction. Mr Nolan denied that anything of the kind was required. These men had accepted the positions of returning officer, and then with oat saying anything had appointed deputies. Ignorance of the law waa no excuse. As to the polling districts he contended that the Act dearly showed that the poll must be taken in Ormond and Wsikohu. • The office of the Cook County Council was outside of the jurisdiction of the County district. He had no doubt that everything connected with the polling must be taken within the district. Hts Worship said only those persons voted who had an interest in tbe district. Mr Bees said the Act provided that the Sfa'iiq °° al< be Bppointed out,ide the Mr Nolan, continuing, argued that the returning officers had no power to vote, and that tbe seven votes recorded by them had turned the scale of tbe election. His Worship said, after bearing lengthened argument on the case, sod the evidence called, he waa satisfied there had been no unfairness in the polling, and would dismiss the petition. Costs being applied for, His Worship said he thought they ought fairly to bo allowed, They were set down as—Solioitors' fees, £o 6«, ana amount of advertising,