Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 6656x7680 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

A DISPUTED ELECTION.
attempt to oust a councillor.
Tlic rule nisi obtained by Jumcs Henry
Curnow, calling upon Alfred Shiupnell
Builes to show cause wiiy be should not be
ousted from ollico lis a member of the Jlcn-
digo city council, was returnable before Mr.
Justice Hood in the Supreme Court yester
day. Mr. Mitchell, instructed by Messrs.
Connolly, Crocker and Haling, appeared for
the relator to move the rule absolute; and
Air. Cussen, instructed by Messrs. Quick
and Hyett, for the respondent, to show
cause.
Mr, Cussen snid the parties stood for a
vacancy which recently occurred in the re
presentation of Darkly ward in the Bendigo
city council. Mr. I tin leg was declared elec
ted, nml Mr. Curnow obtained an order
nisi to oust him from office on tbo ground
that lie was disqualified, inasmuch as he
wns not liable to be rated in respect of pro
perty of the annual rateable value of £20.
Mr. Curnow bad filed an affidavit that Mr.
Dalles was residing on property in respect
of which his wife bail been rated since 1893;
and that when applying for an elector's
right he bad signed a declaration that he
was simply a lodger in his wife's house.
Respondent, in his answering affidavit, said
that about March, 1893, his wife purchased
a property iii Barnes-street, Bendigo, anil
lie had since paid her £1 per week as the
rent of it. He pniil the household expenses,
and ns the occupier. of the house paid all
rales. His name appeared in the revised
voters list for 1893, but subsequently the
rate collector inserted his wife s name in
the rate book at her request, hut without
h'H consent. He still retained tho qualifica
tion held by him in 1893 ns occupier. He
had sinco applied to have his iiiunti rein-
slntcd. In November, 1800, ho called on
Mr. Rankin, the electoral registrar, and in
quired when lie could obtain his elector's
right. A great many persons were present,
and the registrar told him to leave the fee,
sign the block of the elector's right book,
and the right would be sent to him later
on.
Mr. llailes was cross-examined on his nffi-
dnvit by Mr. Mitchell, nnd stated that in
November, 189(1, lie signed both the block
and the elector's right, but not the declara
tion on the hack of it. When he took out
Ills elector's right for I89I he signed a decla
ration tlmt he was a lodger in his wife's
house, lie did not do so with the intention
of deceiving anyone. Ho thought lie could
rightly sign it.
Melinda Builes, wife of tho respondent,
was also cross-examined on an affidavit
made by her. She stated that her husband
regularly paid her £1 per week for the rent
of the house, which was rated at £40.
Mr. Justice Hood: What do you do with
the money? — I generally spend it in buying
presents for my grandchildren. I have not
saved any of it.
Mr. Mitchell; If your husband was the oc
cupier of your house, how came you to get
your name put on the rolls? — It wns the out
come of a little disagreement. I did not
want him to go into Parliament again, and
thought by buying his munu off the roll lie
would be disqualified. I went to the rate
collector and valuator, Mr. Obadiah Hop
per, and told him to take my husband's
name off and put my name on. lie did so.
This closed the evidence.
Mr. Justice Hood snid the matter turned
upon a question of fact. Some extraordi
nary statements liad been made during the
progress of the euso. One was tlmt the rate
collector, Mr. Hopper, took a man's mime
off the register simply because the man's
Wife told liiin to do so; another was that
the electoral registrar, in flnt contravention
of his duty under the net, allowed a
claimant for a rigid, to sign the body of the
declaration in blank, leaving it to bo filled
up by the registrar ns lie thought
best afterwards. 'Those were most extraordi
nary statements! and if true, neither
officer wns worthy of tho position lie
held. The. main question was whether
Mr. and Mrs. Bailes were t'ellingg the
truth. It wns a peculiar position to exist
between man and wife, nn unusual position,
liut belli had sworn to it, and he wns not to
conclude that thoy were not telling the
truth because the statements were peculiar.
Mr. Bailes had impressed him in the box us
a truthful witness, and ono fact that had
strongly impressed him was that the respon
dent went on with the election, knowing
that this question of alleged disqualification
wns to he brought on. ITc thought the
order nisi should ho discharged, liut as Mr.
Bailes had brought the whole trouble en
tirely on himself he Rliould pay the costs.
Order nisi discharged, with £15" costs, to be
paid by Mr. Bailes to the relator.
$