RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Inangahua Times, Volume IX, Issue 1479, 5 December 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before W. H. Kbvell, Esq , R.M.) • Thursday, December 4th, 1884., Election Petition. In the matter of the petition lodged against the return of James Lynch, for the Riding of Crushington. The petition set forth that the Returning Officer refused the votes of six persons who presented to poll ou occasion by virtue of miners right. Mr Menteath in opening the cas* said that the successful candidate on the occasion was returned by a majority of four votes, consequently if he proved that six persons were debarred from voting who ought properly to have been admitted, that was an irregularity of such a nature as to justify him in asking the court to declare the whole election void. Mr Lynch who appeared to support the validity of the election aJmitted the formal proofs, and based his defence upon the ground that the Returning officer acted rightly in excluding the holders of miners rights whose names did not appear on the roll. The case took the form of a lengthy legal argument between counsel, After hearing counsel at some length His Worship ruled the miner's right holders had been improperly denied the right to vote and declined the right to vote and declared the election void. Costs, including the expenses of nine witnesses and professional fee, were allowed to the petitioners. Murray Riding. This was a similar petition against the return of J. 0. Craig for the Eiding of Murray. The identical with allegations were those of the preceding petition heard. In this case however, the successful candidate had only been returned by a majority of one vote. John McGreggor : I reside at Crushington and am the holder of a miners right ; I have no rateable pro perty in that Eiding ; I recollect the County elections on the 12th November ; on that d?iy I claimed a vote on the miner's right now produced ; this [ was at the Cruahington booth ; I have resided in that riding for three months ; the Returning officer looked over the roll and said my name was not there and that he would not giv« me a vote even if the right had been dated 1883. Charles Bowater : 1 am a resideut of the Murray riding ; I recollect the County election for that Riding on the 12th November ; I claimed a vote ; ] asked the Returning officer what the qualification was to vote and h»j asked me if I was a ratepayer I said I was a ratepayer but my name was notonHhe roll ; I then tendered nay miiiWa right and claimed to vote ; I aske^ him if I could vote on my rates ; he said my name was not on the roll ; I am not alien. By Mr Lynch : I tendered the miner's right and demanded a voto thereon ; I first of all tendered the reoeipt for ratqs for last year and was rtf used on thai M^nte&th who with 3tf r North

appeared for the petitioners called one | witness who proved having presented ito vote on a miner's right and been ; refused by the Returning Officer. Mr Lynch for the defence admitted the formal proofs, and the evidence having supported the allegations of the petition the election was declared 1 void, fall costs being allowed to the petitions. Reefton Riding. In this case the petition Set forth that the poll was not opened within the time provided by law, also that the ballot box was not in the booth when the poll opened and that it was not locked during the day. There was a further ground that the Returning Officer refused to put to voters when so requested by a scrutineer certain questions effecting the residential qualification of persona voting by virtue of a miners right enrollment. Mr Menteath, who with Mr North appeared for the petitioners, opened the case at considerable lengtU and then called the following evidence. — W. J. Potts : I acted as acruitneer for G. 0. Bowman, a candidate, at the Council election for the Riding of Reeftou on the 12th November last. The poll was not opened until four minutes past nine by my time, and then the outer door only was opened ; attention was called to the fact that the inner door leading into the booth should also be opened ; the door was then opened ; it was then discovered that there was no ballot box in the booth ; the fact was mentioned to the Returning Officer and a minute or so latter a carpenter brought the box into the booth and attemp ed to lock it, but was unable to do so ; the Returning Officer then opened the box in the presence of the scrutineers and tried to lock it but was unable to do so, but tinaly drew the key out and placed it on the floor. While this was going on Mr Brennan came in to vote and waited until the box was ready ; After the close of the poll the Returning Officer opened the box without unlocking it, and admitted that it had not been locked ; During the polling I asked the Returning Officer to put to persons claiuiiug to vole the questions as to residental qualification ami that he refused to do saying his printed instructions from Council were that he was not to put any questions to voters touching their residence William Hind marsh : E am a Sharebroktsr residing at Reefton. I was suruituecr for Mr J. I. Aiken at the County election on the 12th November for the Riding uf Reefton ; The poll opened at 9 a.m. by the Council clock ; and 10 minutef past by aiy time ; the front door was open, but the inside door was not open.; the ballot box was brought in about 5 minutes past nine o'clock by the Council clock ; Mr Brennan was there wailing to poll and the Returning Officer seemed to turn , the tysk and declared the poll ; I think the Returning said the poll i 3 now fOpen ; the box was shown to us ; lam of opinion that the ballot box was not locked all day ; at the close of the poll i the Returning Officer put the key in 'aud could not turn it and then caught j hold of the lid and gave it a wrench when it opened and the Returning i Officer admitted that it was not j locked ; I have a list of the questious put to the voters ; the question as to i residence was put about twenty-three . times aud the Returning Officer rej fused to put them and said he would not put any question as to residence. (He distinctly refused to put the • question ; a good many miners right j voters polled without any questious i being put to them. The fact was that Mr Potts put a general question aud asked the Returning Officer for a general decision and the Returning Officer then declared emphatically that he would not put to any voter the residental question ; we asked for the Counties Act but the Clerk would uot produce it. James Clunan : I was Returning Officer for the Riding of Reefton at the County elections on the 12th November ; I produced a copy of the instructions I received fram the Council as to the conduct of the election. Mr Lynch objected to the instructions being put in. The Court had nothing whatever to do with the instruction. His Worship allowed the objection. Examination continued : I did refuse after six votes to put the question as to residence put by Mr Potts ; that was the instructions I got from the Council and I acted up to it ; I said I would not put the residential qualification. By Mr Lynch ; The only question I was asked to put was sub-section 2 of I clause 30th of the Local Election Act. The poll was opened at 9 but the ballot box was not there for a minute after; I swear it was two minutes closed beforw anybody presented to vote ; nobody touched the box during the day. By Mr Menteath : Will swear that to the best of my impression it was locked ; will not swear positively that it was locked so far as a man can swear to anything that he does not see. His Worship said that he did not think it necessary to go any further with regard to the time of opening the poll, or as to the box being locked or unlocked. There seemed to be some uncertainly on each side about it and this question was not such a one as would justify him in upsetting the election His Worship declared the election void and allowed full costs to the petitioners. A petition had been lodged ag i-h'st the Antonioa election, but was withdrawn. Tb« Court then adjourned.