View report page

122
farmer of the Act meant, I cannot think the words with regard to the
scrutiny convey more than that there shall be a scrutiny of papers
after collection; because a scrutiny is not a thing which is sufficiently
definite in its description to speak for itself as to the manner in
which it shall be carried out. And it seems to me that the scrutiny
which comes after an election must have proper machinery, or it
cannot possibly be carried out. But in this Act no provision is made
for such, and for that reason I don't think the word "scrutiny" could
bear the more precise indication which Mr. Jelf and Mr. Stokes
wanted it to. There was an attempt make by Mr. Stokes, certainly
with the assent of his learned leader, to impart something more into
the case, than could fairly be discussed. This was with regard to
the appointment of the Commissioners. It was sought to be shown
that they were not properly appointed, because appointed prematurely,
having regard to the other objections to the poll, &c. I would be
sorry to see people going away from this Court saying they have not
been heard, but until these objections which have been relied upon
for the upsetting of the poll had been heard, other matters could not
be introduced. It seems to me that to raise that objection now, is
to raise the other objections and the other matters of fact, and group
them all together, when the election has been so satisfactorily carried
out that no one could come to the conclusion that the sense of the
majority has not been ascertained—at least, the sensible majority—
and by that I mean those who would go and vote in the same way
as the majority would go to the meeting—and this means the
majority of those who take the trouble to deliver their voting paper
and express their opinion. There are, undoubtedly, 32 votes which
ought to be added to the list of opponents' votes before we can say
that the results are satisfactory. This refers to the votes at Muswell
Hill. But the non-delivery of papers there appears to be accounted
for reasonably enough. It has been accounted for in this way, that
they were no part of the general system, but an area of the people
living away and not supposed to have any real interest in the place.
Although this was clearly wrong, because all ratepayers should have
had notice, it does not in this instance affect the character of the
election. Now with regard to the other objections, I have weighed
very carefully the character of the evidence adduced, and if there
was anything indicating a system of fraud, misconduct, or even
carelessness, I have failed to see it. There is nothing in the
evidence pointing to a likelihood of the relators being able to go far
beyond what we have before us, and, therefore, likely to seriously