ELECTION PETITION.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XL, Issue 12539, 10 May 1915, Page 1

ELECTION PETITION.

VERNON REED UNSEATED

(Per Pkess Association.) Auckland, Jkv S

In the Bay of Islands petition the. Court said that the first question was whether a seat in the Legislative Council was an office within the meaning of subsection (b) clause 216 of the Legislature Act, 190 S. A seat in the Council carried with it the discharge of the highest public duties on. behalf of the people ol the .Dominion. The Court considers that comes within tin definition of office. The evidence established the. .fact that respondent assured Johnston that the offer had a sufficient basis O: certainty in it, and so, on the strength of it, Wilkinson could safely retire and net he disappointed. It was intended that this proposal should be as iirm and certain as respondent's alternative promise to retire. While the Court regarded the>e facts as sufficient to establish, an offer of office, it thought that if they did not reach that mark they implied a promise to procure office, or to endeavor to procure it, as. fully as did the letter in the Wellington Suburbs election. If an assurance of a scat was not actually given by the respondent, there, was at least an implied promise that he would act in favor of getting it for Wilkinson. With re-' sport to the second charge founded on respondent's undertaking to nsign in 12. months, the Court regarded tin's' as but part and parcel of one oifer and not as tfie subject of a distinct charge. It did not think that this could be the basis of two distinct charges of bribery. They therefore passt d over this charge, as included in the first charge. With regard to the charge: made o: offering Wilkinson his expenses if he would retire the Court considered this had not been established. It was true Jacontho made an offer, but in the Court's opinion he did so without any authority, express or implied, emanating from the respondent'. The Court accepted respondent's statement on tin's point, and held the charge disproved. The judgment concludes: The Court holds the first charge proved, and determines to- certify that the election of ■respondent to the House of Representatives at the poll on December 10, 1914. for the Bay of Islands electoral district was and is void. The Court remarked upon the fact that all the witnesses, including respondent, gave evidence frankly and fully. The evidence of respondent himself left an impression on their Honors' minds that the candidate was not conscious that in what he did he was committing what the Court held was a breach of the law. The Court fixed the term of disqualification of respondent at one year. Certificates of indemnity will be given to Jacentho, Johnston, and respondent.

THE TAUMAErNt'I SKAT. J'eu Press Association. Auckland.. May 7. At the hearing of the. Taumarunui election petition, Mr Justice Cooper .said that if the Court ordered a scrutiny—a point that had yet to he considered —it would become necessary to open every ballotpaper to the mmi-ber of 7!X>U odd. That would probably take three weeks or more.

' Mr Johnston said that even if the ballot papers were opened it would not be possible, to identify the voting papers where the counterfoil was ni'.ssiiiir.

Eepiyiuji to a- question from the. Bench, counsel said tin; admissions hud roughly reduced the number oi votes aski'd to be disallowed to about (30. . Mr iMndlay said Mr Jennings' n.ajoritv a.t the election was 2.%.

Mr Justice Chapman: Tinn if aIL thost 60-votes v.-i.-re disallowed von still have 145 ae_n.in.st him.

Mr Johnston.replied that ho did not rely on the actual number of votes disallowed, but more upon irregularities. He argued thai a scrutiny should be ordered, and stated that at several booths the counterfoils wire missing. Taking sin 25 votes that were quite unaccounted for there wire. 3<6 eases oi vote which could not he identified with the roll numbers. It was possible also that under the heading of plural votes alone lo(i ca.ses would be discovered. Counsel then came to the ease of James Burns Young. Mr Justice. Cooper said there could have been nothing more irregular than Young's action, in sending in claims .which"ho witnessed without having seen them signed. He admitted _:> such

. Mr Johns-ton: 1 submit tlr.it there were more than '2'.l. The evidence was sufficient to suggest that- he made a practice of it. No pains were spared by the electoral officer to make it plain to people -how the forms were to be filled in. Young must have known exactly what was required. Young was a most ene-rtretic man, having placed about 6XIO people on the roll. _ When the case was opened I knew of four instances of claims having been attested bv Young and subsequently signed by the claimants. One- witness proved two more. I selected forms at random, and in every ease Y'oung admitted that they were signed by him before they were signed by the- claimants. 1 was ;.ible to take 16 from a bundle and proved 15 of ■them. His evidence, as to the number is eutirely unreliable. He was obviously n man" who had no sense of his duty, because when confronted by your' Honor with having done a highly improper thing he turned round and said "that was a technical breach." ; Mr Justice Cooper: The matter and manner of his evidence show that he .was unworthy cf belief. Mr Johnston: That i.s so, and I submit that the inference which will be: drawn from his conduct is not that he returned 20 or 40 forms improperly, but that he made a practice of it. He .was a paid servant of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, .a man whose business it was to get -claims filled in, and he dkl it in the easiest possible way for himself. Young's conduct afforded evidence of irregularities of a most serious and far-reaching kind. Not only -was it nossible that persons were put on the roll without qualification, but the whole declaration which' was required to be made was done away with. In regard to the question whether Young was an -agent of Mr Jennings, counsel quoted eases on the point to show that he was. It could not be said that- the election was other than in doubt. There wore still.about.24o vote in question. Mr Johnston then came to the question whether Mr Jennings was entitled to be a candidate at" the election. ' Tt was submitted that he was not so entitled. He was not qualified,'by law to be an elector, was wrongly on the roll, and therefore was not qualified to stand as a. faiididate. The'matter resolved itself into a question of residence. Was Mr Jennings a resident "in the Taumarunui district for one month previous to the closing of the roll? .There must lie some-permanence, -about an individual's residi nee. Visits for business or pleasure did. not -show residence. The home for his wife and family should he treated as his residence.

: Mi- Justice Cooper: A man may reside in two or ihroe places. Counsel: T submit that for the purposes <.f the Electoral" Act lie could not. do so. The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.