No corrections yet
THE WARREGO ELECTION.
MR. BARBER UNSEATED. MR. P. J. LEAHY DECLARED ELECTED. BRISBANE, September 23.
The petition by Mr P. J. Leahy against Ihe return of Mr G. P. Barber as member for Warrego came before the Elections Tribunal, consisting of
his Honor the Chief Justice (Sir Pope Cooper) and Messrs Bouchard, McMas ter. and Stodart, assessors, to-day. The Chief Justice said the respondent had filed a notice that he did not in tend no oppose the petition. Ifte (the Chief Justice) also said he had received a letter .from Mr Herbertson rsklng to. bo permitted to absent himself from the tribunal, as he had important busi ness to attend to. If Mr Herbertson preferred to attend to his business he could not excuse him, and ho must take the conse'quence, whatever that might bo. ' Tho assessors were sworn. The Chief Justice said the petitioner claimed that he was elected, not oh the ground that he had received more votes than -his opponent, but on the grounds that he (Mr Barber) was not properly nominated. Evidence was given of the liquida tion of Mr Barber. Mr Stumm read the affidavits of the returning olficer and of the respondent (Mr G. Barber). The latter ^tated that the only candidates at the election were Mr Leahy and himself. In Sep tember. 188S, he filed a petition tor liquidation of 'his affairs, and In May, . 1S89, his creditors passed a resolution that he was not entitled to a certificate of discharge. His liquidation had not been annulled, and he had never re ceived his certificate. He did not know at tho timo of Ms nomination that tho fact that he had not obtained his dis charge as an Insolvent was a dlsuual!-. fixation, but ho acknowledged now, he wag not qualified to be elected. Mr P. J. Leahy stated that he was the rf'-lrlng member, and he was noml CContlnued on Page ?.)
nated for re-election. He was careful to see that his nomination paper was In order. It was signed by ten per sons, whose names wore on the rolls, and who were entitled to vote at the election. He believed that Mr Barber received 646 votes, and himself 640. So far as he knew he was not disqualified in any way from being' nominated or being elected member for Warrego. This was the case for the petitioner. Mr Stumm submitted that under Sec tion 61 of the Elections Act the fact that a man had liquidated his affairs by arrangement and had not received his certificate of discbarge, and his creditors had not been fully paid or satisfied, was an absolute bar to his nomination. The words of the section were 'Incapable of being- nominated or elected.' Under Section 4!) ilso the re spondent's nomination was bail.' He (Mr Stumm) submitted that lmlh en the facts and the law the Court would declare Mr Leahy duly elected. The assessors found the C-icts in the petitioner's favor, expressing tho opi nion that according to lair the respon dent was incapable of being nomina ted or elected, and that th-- i clilfoner ytaa the only qualified candidate. The Chief! Justice poti'JM out that there was only one real candidate at the election, and if the returning offi cer had been aware that the other can didate was incapable of being nomina ted it would have been his duty to de clare the petitioner elected as the only candidate nominated. The returning officer was not aware of that. and, sup posing that both were properly nomi nated, he declared Mr Barber elected na the person who received the most votes. The question for the tribunal was whether the petitioner was duly elected, he being the only ;-orson capable of being nominated. The assessors said they were satis fled that respondent was incapable of being nominated or elected. Mr Stumm asked his Honor to de clare that respondent (Mr Barberj was disqualified from being nominated or elected, and to declare that he was not duly elected and returned, and that the petitioner (Mr Leahy) was duly elec ted, and ought to have been returned .as the sitting member. The Chief Justice made a declaration accordingly, and directed that Hie de posit money should be returned to Mr Leahy with any, accrued interest.