Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 5120x6656 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail
Hide article pages Show article pages
  1. Page 6
    Page 6 thumbnail
  2. Page 7
    Page 7 thumbnail

Article text

' n MONDAY, MAHCH llTH.J

The special i tatting of the Supreme Court
was resumed at 10 a.m. The attendance of

^^neral public was; not BO large as^ueual ;
there Were« however, à goodly numbër both
on . ^i.^floor, and in the ' gallery of the
CtottrtJboMe, «md - amongst * ;; amt a few,

w>s rife as- ito what coors»

,ft; ^ inWnded: to pursue, after the-turo

m&ibe#^toek «ox ¡ the Saturday previous.
Öoobts wei» eïprossed ají to whether the
case wonld be proceeded with* and tho ap
pesiitóóe' hf the petitioner, för the first time

.risoV¿¡» Court opened on Tuesday last, with*

ont his wig and gowai seemed tb esme to in-

dicate ^thit a departure Was about 'to be

made from the natural order of the prooeed
v iàgs. M-doubt* in the matter wera, how

efer, M^ijt roiji wlien 3f|vBornside rpse in

his place and informel the Court that the
pefcitlo^ér, nf ter their Honours' expression of
opinion ;!lA*t'Saturday, with regard to the
acmtmy, had 'decided tb ask for leave to
withdraw the petition. Mr. Burt, upon being
rief erre'4 th ty the Beheb, said he hod no ob
jeetion^to taise,'but asked'for costs, which,
af ter some argument, were granted. Mr.
Horgan having, through' his counsel, asked
for permission to »tire evidence upon the
»orimbaafory charge of corrupt prácticos,
'wis allowed to make' a statement upon
oath, the Court holding with Hr. Burt that
.ll that itt was necessary for him to do was to
deny that he had been guilty of corrupt prac
? tices;-^ThtafMr.' Horgan 'did, 'buta further
denial that he had " buttonholed " electors,
on the'day of election, which, he said, the
other easdidates bad done¿ was. resented by
Mr. Keane, who tersely denie'd the imputa-,
tlon. Mr. Horgan contibned to give evidence
?Whiohhe 'deemed necessary to clear himself
from thu oharge,* notwithstanding' repeated
aaiarances from tho Conti that they were
satisfied with Iiis denial, until the Chief Jus-
tice ««ked him to tost assured that his ex

pUntffcOn'and dental were sufficient. The
mention Of the case against tho Betnrning
Officer was the signal for á very lengthy ar-
gument, based ohiofly nppn the question
whether, as it was withdrawn, Mr. Boo
should-to: aUowed costs or not. The
fhief ' 'Justice was very severe in
bis commenta on that official's conduct

Of th* business of the' election, and!
notwithstanding Mr. Hare's oft-reiterated
objections that whateve^ evidence the Court
bad upon tho subject was obtained in a case
which hud nothing to do with tho petition
'against tho Sheriff, tho Judges decided to
' make ho order BS io costs,1 which, of conrso,

practically moans that each party is to pay
his own. Before rising both tho Judges de-
livered a few remarks upon the petitions, the
Chief Justice expressing the opinion that he
had delivered is an earlier part of the pro-
ceedings that had tho charge of personation
boen proved against the authorised agent of
Br. Scott, tho penalty of voiding tho seat,
which %bé statute neglected to imposé ou tho
. candidate could have been inflicted under the

common-law. With regard to the costs in
that casu, His Honour said the Court had
given their decUion, bnt he thought there
was eb ¡ mn rh auspicien iii tho nape
that bad tho petitioner's case been above
suspicion, he should have felt disposed to
make no order os to costs. He expressed his
strong disapproval of personal canvass on
tho part ' of candidates on election day, as

derogatory tojth^ dignity of tho Legislature, j
and again referring to the case of the .Sheriff j

witl that botlf lit/ »nd Mr, Justice Sloiiu

wereof opinion that Mr. Boo had neglected hin
duty. Before Mr., Justioe Stone delivered
his opinion, Mn Keane addressing the Court,
denied that he had personally canvassed the
eles-tors on oleotion dar, while Dr. Soott
though admitting that he asked electors for
their votes, denied that he or his ageut did
so in the Town Hall. Mr. Justioe Stone then
stated his opinion on the question of - a.
candidate's common law liability in oaseB
of personation. He said he differed from
the Chief Justioe upon this point, and
his opinion being guided by the dicta of Mr.
Justice Mellor and Baron Martin, in the.
Salton case, ho considered that the statutory,
pnnishmont of the poraonator was the- only
penalty that the Legislature intended, and
that hod they considered it necessary that
personation should involve the vacancy of the
sleet, they wonld have enacted it, and hence
the oommon-law could, not apply. With re
gard to what had beon said connecting Dr.
Scott with the suspicious circumstances
of the case, His Honor was of opinion that as
.the case was dismissed before it reached the
atage for the respondent to be called upon to
rebut the petitioner's evidence, it would not
bo right to oonnect Dr. Soott with them. At'
the conclusion of Mr. .Justice Stono'e re-
marks the Court rose, and thus brought the
special sitting to a close at 11.30 a.m.

Upon the Court resuming, ,

Mr. Barnside said that before the case was .
proooedod with, he wished to say that he was
instructed to state that the petitioner had
decided, so far as the petition against Mr,
Keane waa oonperned, to. withdraw the peti
,tion, ashefelt that,;, after the opinion ex-

pressed by their Honors as to the uselessness,
of a aorutiny, it wonld bo simply a waste of
time going on to prove that whioh when it
waa proved, would be of no avail.

The Chief Justice said he stated that if
only three votes could ho shewn as necessary
to be struck off, it wonld only affect the

majority of five, and would still give Mr. ?

Keane 419 votes against Mr. Horgan's 417. |

Mr. Burnside said that as regards a
scrutiny only threo votes were askod to be

struck off. With regard to Flynn's vote, he j
thought his Honour had come to tho con
elusion that it could not be struck off j as it

turned ont than tho vote was not intentionally !
personated, bat was only personated by mis-
take.

The Chief Justice said tho vote, if given by j
mistake, could not be struck oif without ¡
emending the particulars. j

Mr. Burnside said, it oquld not, and. the i
Court had ruled there could be no more

amendments. In these circumstances, it;

would only reduce the nnmber to 419, and !
leave the respondent Keane in a majority of

two.

The Chief Justice : He would still be in a
majority of one, if we strack off Flynn's.:
vote. * i

. (Mr. Burnside ; That is, assuming that the.

vote was not for Mr. Horgan. .. . «

The Chief Justice said that was assuming
that both parties were, he hoped, in the dark'

as to whom any of the votes were for. - > j

Mr. Burnside said the only remaining
quotation waa that of minorahip, and, from
what he could eee, that wonld affect tho peti- '
tioner as mneh as the respondent. i

Mr. Bnrt : There is only one on oar side
and there are seven or eight on the petition

era.

The Cbief Justice : What do yon say, Mr. ]
Burt, to this application P -r

Mr. Burt said he had no objection to make ]

to tho withdrawal of the petition, upon pay
meutof costs.

The Chief Justice : Wc have nothiflg to do .
with, that, I think. Is that not a matter for1
private arrangement i'

Mr. Burt did not know whether thoy would
caro for it being arranged privately. In say-
ing that he had not any objection to offer, he
thought it would be right to mention1 that it
was, iu bis opinion questionable whether it

was in tbe power of the Court to allow tho i
petition to be withdrawn. Mt. Horgan would '
understand that be did not Object to it, but it
muBt be understood that occupying the posi-
tion he (Mr. Bart) did, he could not allow the
Court to bo under any mistake in the matter.
The learned counsel thon read the 17th sec-
tion of the 39th Viot. No. 10, whioh states :
" An election petition under this Act shall not
" be withdrawn without the leave of the
" Supreme Court upon special application to
" be mada in and at the, prescribed manner,
" time, and place. No such application shall
" bo made for the withdrawal of a petition
* until the presoribod notice has been given
*' in the electoral district to which the peti

" tion relates of tho intention of the petition
" er to make an application for the with
" drawn! of his petition. On the hearing of tho
" application for withdrawal, any person or
" persons who might have been a petitioner
" or petitioners in respect of the election to
" which the petition relates .may apply to the
" said Court to be substituted as a petitioner
" or petitioners for the petitioner so desirous
" of withdrawing tho petition. The said
" Court may, if it think fit, substitute as a
" petitioner, any such applicant or appli
4i cants aa aforesaid, anil may further, if til»
" proposed withdrawal is, iu tho opinion ol'
" the said Cdurt, induced by any corrupt
" bargain or consideration, by order direct
« that the security given on behalf of tho
" or'ginol petition shall remain, a security for
" any costs that »nay be-incurred by tho sub
" eli tuted petitioner, and that to the extent
" ot the Kum named in such security, the
"original petitioner shall bo liable te pay
" tho coats of the substituted petitioner. IC
" no such order bo made with respect
" to the security given on behalf of
" the original petitioner, security to the
" same amount as would be required in the
''casu of a new petition, uud subject to thu

like conditions, shall be given on hehalf o£
" the substituted petitioner before he pro
V oeeds with hie petition, and within the pre
" scribed timo after the order of substitution.
" Subject as aforesaid, a substituted petitioner
" shall stand in the same position, as nearly
*. as may be, and be subject to tho same
1 .'liabilities as the original petitioner. If'a
; "petition ia withdrawn, the petitioner shall

" be liable to pay the oosts of tho respoudènt
" Where there are mow petitioners than one
** no application to withdraw a petition shall
*' be made except with tho consent of all the
" petitioners." 1
? i The Chief Jnstioe asked if thora was any*

thing to shew that the section did not refer
to « petition that had not come on for bear-
ing.

Mr. Burt said he was going to say that it
waa his opinion that it did refer to ' snob
potitions. But he bettered there were cases
in whioh petitions had been withdrawn after '
the hearing had oommenoed, although he
could not put his hands on them npon the

'moment.

In reply to the Chief Justioe, tho learned
counsel said ho did net think recriminatory
1 cases were gone into unless the petitioner 1

succeeded. "

. The Chief Justioe said that if there was
any substantial charge against the respon-1
d?nt that they had not heard of, he ahónld
not be ineUned to grant the application.
But strictly the question turned upon whether
oortain votes should'be struck off; and there-
fore he did notsoe any necessity for going to
the constituency in this.

Mr. Burnside said' be was asked by the
petitioners to plaoe before their Honours
this: that as theso recriminatory' charges
had been mode publio he might be allowed
au opportunity of giving ovidenoe upon thom,
as they were of a very grave nature, and
wonld not, Mr. Horgan thought, bo met by
Mr. Burt abandoning tho recriminatory
charges.

Mr. Justice Stone : I think that is a fair
proposition.

Mr. Burnside, continuing, said the question
of costs was iu their Honor's hands. ,

' The Chief Justioe said he did not think so.
If the petition were withdrawn tho costs went
with the event. i;

Mr. Burt suggested that the proper course
wonld be for the ptetiiioDor to say that he
bftd no further evidence to offer, and did not
desire tho Court to go «a with the petition
which .they might dismiutj with costs.

' In reply te Mr. Justioe Stone, as to whe-
ther fhe had any case to shew that a petition
could be withdrawn during the hearing, Mr.
Burnside referred to' a reference in tho
Gloufiestarcme (3,0'M.& H.,p. 73),from which
it seemed that the case referred tb wont on
to a certain point, and then the potioner, not
offering farther evidence, and being disin-
clined to proceed further with it, the Court
allowed it to be withdrawn.

Mr. Burt said that was the case he had in
his mind, and that he supposed the petition
would be dismissed with costs.

(Tho Chief Justice said they should have to
report that the petition bad failed, and that
the respondents were to keep their seats.

Mr. Burt: Tho proper thing will be to
diemiasitwith cost*.

The Chief Justioe : Yes.

¡Mr. Burt said that with regard to Mr.
Horgan's desire to give evidonoo upon the'
recriminatory obarges,' ho would suggest that
; it would be sufficient for him to go into tho
box, and beingeworn, to deny he was guilty
.of corrupt practices.

Tho Chief Justice; Yes, and thon yon
can cross-examine him if you like.

Mr. Burt : I have ito wish to do so.

' Mr- Horgan was thea «nvorn, and said : I
am a petitioner in this case. As to tho
charge of aiding and allotting, ur inducing
Michael Mc'Ardlo to persónate the vote of
hip fothor, I must positively deny that I was
iniany way oonneeted with it. I remained in
my office the whole of that day, and did not
stand on tho stairs ef the Town hall button-
holing the eloctora as the other candidates
<di<l. ,. ' '»3

Mr. Keane : I did -not button-hole the
electors.

The Chief Justice: There is no evidence
that Mr. Keane did that. But even if he
did, yon must confine your evidence to your-

self.

Mr. Horgan : I did not ask any elector ix.

'vote for me.

Me. Burt: There ia no need to go inte
that. *

- Mr. Horgan (to Mr. Burt) : I must go mor<
into it than you say. To the Court: Mc Ardil
was brought into my office by Mr. Loo. 1
was in the office, and explained the businas;
of yoting.

Mr. Bnrt : All he has to do is simply ti
deny it. If Mr. Horgan wants to try it out
wo aro quite prepared lo do so.

Mr. Justice Stouo -. That is all he IWB t

do.

The Chief Justice : We are satisfiod witl
your answer, Mr. Horgan.

Mr. Horgan : I would ask your Honours t
let mo finish. I will tell you in two words.

The Chief Justice : I do not think that i
is fair that you should.

Mr. Horgan : I was simply asked " 1
< Miuhaol McAnile on the roll," and I looke

at the roll, and said " Yes."

Mr. Justice Stone : I am perfectly satisfice
Mr. Horgan, that you had nothing to do wit

. it.

The Cliiof Jiistica; Mr. Horgan, dornt
assured of the faet that tho Court is aatialtd
with your ßxplauatiou and denial.

Mr. Burnside.- Will your Honours hear M

Lee ?

- Mr. Justice Stone : Wo cannot hoar M

Lee,

Tho Chief Justice : There id nothir
ttgaîusfc Mr. Lee at ult.

Mr. Burt : Then tho case will not bo pro-

ceeded with P

Tho Chief Justice : No.

Mr. Burnside said there now remainod tho
case of tho Sheriff. Ho asked that no order
might bo mad j as to oosts, for this reason :
they would sec by the évidence that tho
election was not conducted with that strict
regard to tho with law which, he knew their
Honours wonld hold, it should bo conducted.
No proper retnrn luid been made to tbe Gov-
ernor, and, so far as they had gone, thoy had
no conclusive evidence that the Beturniug
Officer's declarations had been made as re-
quired by the Act. ' .

Tho Chief Justice said he asked that Mr.
Knight should be there with them, but it had
quite slipped his memory. Ho believed,
however, the Sheriff was prepared to swear
that bri ntade tho oath before the Registrar,
who was a j net ¡co of the poaco.

Mr. Hare (who appeared for the Sheriff)
said it was quite outside his case.

The Ghief Justioe: Wo had it from the
mouth of your own client.

Mr. Hare : Of course, but it was in another
caeo. It'is not alleged in the petition.

The Chief Justice said that both his

brother Stone and himself were agreed, so

far as regarded the Sheriff's ease, that there '

should bc no order for oosts.

Mr. Hare said that if the other side wished
the Sheriff to pay his own coats, and to got
away from their liability, they must be pre
pared to prove their omi damage. Tho re
turn of the writ was in order, though the
certificate might have beon different, but how
were they damaged in that Way ? , Unless
they could provo that they were damnified,
tho sheriff was entitled to his oosts.

The Chief Justice : I think you would go
a very long way before you found a returning
officer who has done bis duty so negligently
as he has. Actually going so far as to say
ho did not make' a roture of the suspected
votes because ho did not think it necessary.

Mr. Hare : How could thc certificate have
misled them ?

Mr. Justioe Stone: It did not mislead
thom.

Mr. Hare referred to a caso in 1 O'M.
and H., p. 20!), in which Ji-won Martin said
oosts were not to be given ns a punishment.
If their Hononra gave costs against him tbey
would bo punishing, him. Tho Sheriff had
been broaght there as a respondent by no.
fault of his own. AU he'(the learned conn
ael) could say was that ho must insist upon
the casa being gone on with.

Mr. Burnside said that besides the certifi-

cate there was tho ucgloot to seal the ballot

papors.

Tito Chief Justice said ho should not feel
justified in making tho order, because tho
Sheriff had, in every public way, not done

that whioh tho Act said ho should have done.-.
And, so far as ho knew, it was impossible to
' say how the bal'.ot-papers might not have
been tampered with, as they were not sealed

np.

Mr. Hare said the ballot-papers were looked
up in the ballot-box, which was sealed.

Tho Chief Justice : I must say I looked
i Upon that seal as no spal ; it waa absolutely
no procaution. There is another point. The
i Sheriff must have been aware that canvassing
was going ou iu tho room. It was most in-
decent.

Mr. Hare said that had they ' been going
into tho eas?, he should have proved that that
evidence was false. The Sheriff would tell
them that as soon as his attention was drawn
to it, ho stopped it.

The Chief Justice: He ought not to have
needed to lia ve bis attention called to it.

O'Callaghau said : " If this goe3 on, the Town1
hall will be turno ? into a bear-gardon," and
he was quite right.

Mr. Hare : I had no opportunity of cross
examining O'Callaghau upon it.

The Chief Justice: That is quite true. I
think you should have had an opportunity of
doing so.

After further argument,

Mr. Justice Stone said that if the Sheriff
wanted to deny, in the 'samo way as Mr.
Horgan, the allegations mado in the petition,
Mr. Hare might put bim into tho box to do
it.

Mr. Hare : Wo don't want to do that. We
don't want to pay any costs.

Mr. Justice Stone : Well, at present, I am
With the Chief Justioe. I think, Mr. Hare,"
as the Court has given its decision, yon
should bow to it.

Mr. Hêtre: My contention is that the
Court bas no power to make euch a deoision.

Tho Chief Justice : Can you shew any
Coses ?

Mr. Hare mentioned tho Hackney, -átftloae,
Brockley, and Wistaton' cases (2, O'M. and H.)

Tho Chief Justice {after referring to tho
cases) : Well, you can hardly say the Sheriff
has boen guilty of no misconduct hero.

Mr. Hare said the only misconduct was
that with which he was charged in thc petU
tiou, and they could not go outside that.
The onjy misconduct with whioh he could bo
charged was that mentioned in tho 29th
section of the Act. If they proved their
allegations against tho Sheriff let them have
their costs, if not let the Shoriff have bis.

Tho Chief Justice: I do not say that. If
thoy do not provo thoir allegations it does
not justify tho Sheriff's malfeasance of duty.

Mr. Hare : It was wrongfully brought out,
and did not affect Dr. Scott. I must protest

against it, and ask tho Court to lot us go on j

now with tho ((ase.

Tho Chief Justice: I think you have
argued this cane long enough.

Tliis concluded tho arguments.

The Chief Justice said as this was tho firat
caso which had arisen out of tho Perth elec-
tion, and had benn a somewhat important
one, lasting ais day«, he should likn to make
» low remarks upon it. With regard to the
pétition ugaiusL Dr. Scott, tho «no charge

against bim was that he had, by his author
issod agent, oommitted the crime of person-
ation. That petition had been dismissed
upon the one ground that tho fact of the
personation was »ot itself proved. Ho was
of opinion that had personation boen proved,
there was plenty of evidence which would
throw tho onns upon tho respondent to
provo that the porsonator was- not his
agent, and if he bad not succoeded, 1IO.(HÍB
Honour) must exprosa bis opinion-and he
thought he ought to oxpress it, as his brother
Stone did not agree with him-that that oct
committed by tho respondent's agent, would
have vitiated his election.. His ground for
such an opinion was this::' that it was an act
which was distinotly forbidden by law. By
a carious mishap, it was not distinctly stated
in the Act, that the punishment of a can
didate for perbonation by his authorised agent
should be tho loss of his seat. Bat he was
ol opinion that the punishment ot common
law wonld bo revived, as the Aot did not
próvido for - tho punishment of a candid-
ato. It was clear that it was made an offence
by the Act, and it was also clear by the Act
that a candidate was.responsible for all illegal
offences committed by bis authorised agent.
It was well-known that where an Act treated
an offence without mentioning the penalty,
tho penalty must be inflicted by common-law.
Here possibly an indictment might lie: whether
it did or not, ho did not know. With regard
to the costs in Dr. Scott's case they had
given them to him. So fer as he fffis
Honor) was concerned, he thought there was
so much suspicion as regarded the case, that
bad Mr, Horgan come into Court with a per»
fectly unsuspicious case, ho should have felt
disposod to. make no order as regarded tho
costs in that case. With regard to Mr.
Keane's case, no serioce charges were made
against him; they were only asked to, striko
off certain voteB. He thought some of them
would have been held to have been wrong-
ly reoorded, but so far as be know,
ho knew of nothing that would enable him;
to say whether they were Mr. Horgan's votes,
or Mr. Keane's. He must express his great
regret that there was . anything like a per*

sonal canvass upon tho part of the candida-..;
tes themselves, on the day of oleotion. He

did not think the dignity of the House was;'
upheld by a porsonal canvass npon the day
ol' election. He thought it was wrong ¡to.
really drag tho votes out of the electors be
, fore the ballot-box. With regard to tho Sheriff,

ho wished to say but very little. He 'had
felt it his painful duty to say that ho thought
the Sheriff had neglected his duty. He

[ ought to havo carefully followed the ? pro- '

visions of the Act with regard to storing,
away the ballot, papers, and with regard to
tho return to tho Governor. That return,
when made to the Governor, should be pub-
lished forthwith-he did not say in a special
Gazette, but in the very next Gazette after
its receipt. It was important that the
public should know what was the authentic

result of tlie election, and that the unsueceas- -
i ul candidate should be given certain na»
thentic information at the hands of tho
ofticor best acquainted with it, to dooide him
whether ho should dispute the roturn or .not.
His brother Stone was quite agreed with bim
that it was because the Sheriff had neglected
his duty they bad not granted him his costs
in this case.

Mr. ICeauo : May I make a remark ? ,
Upon the day of the ul.otiou !. never, askwl

ono voter for a vote. .7. i;.

Tho Chief Justice : Then I withdraw what -
I said about you, Mr. Keane. . ; r

Dr. Scott : May I also make a remark V -

Tba Chief Justice: I believe my brother
Stone wishos to say a few words.

Dr. Soott: I am merely getting np td
speak with regard to your Honour's remarks
about canvassing. 1 certainly did canvass
on tho,day of çlectiou, but not in the Town
Hull, but on tao stairs below. C wan "quite

prepared ta have proved iu the box that' *
Holmes never weat into the Town hall at alt.

Mr. Justice Scjnc said ho o J ly wished''to
refer to one matter, as His Honour tim <Jbief
Justioe had expressed an opinion with regard'
to personation at elections, whioh he. did not
agree. He did not agree that tho effect Of a

voter personating a vote was te make the -
election of the candidate void, and he
relied for his opinion upon the dictum of

Mr. Justice Mellor in the Bolton case whioh, '
he thought, clearly shewed that in snob a

caso ns this, you could not call in the aid of '
the common law. Tho statute had presoribed
the punishment for personation, and having
so prescribed it, according to Mr. Justice
Mellor you could not fall back upon the ?
common law booause you wera dissatisfied
with the punishment presoribed by the Legis-
lature. Non constat that tho Legislature
were satisfied that in enacting that a
person personating a voter should bo Hablo
to two . years imprisonment was quito
enough to provont it, and it was not nesos
nary to declare as. on additional punishment
that the candidate should lose his<Seat. The
case was different from that referred to by
Mr. Bnrnsido, as to a larceny oran accessory,1

because in the oose of a candidate and au''
aider and abettor, thero were two distinct
porsouä aud two distinct offences, but under
tho Act which enacted that a person guilty of
personation should bc liable te two ycart'
imprisonment, thoro was only one per-
son to bo affected, and ouly Cue person
guilty. Evon supposing tho statute had
gono on further to enact that the candidate
should loso his spat, that candidato might kn
a perfectly innocent; porson, and ho might bp
brought 111 in order that .tho punishment,
might be greater, and to deter persons from
personating. Ke thought they ought to bo
satisfied, from the deoision in tho Bolton
case that tho Legislature were satisfied that
peroonation would bu prevented by enacting
that a person guilty of personation should bo
liable k> t vo years iuipriiouuKub. lia thought

that two years' imprisonment waa quite
sufficient punishment to carry out the
intention of tho Legislature, and if two
years' imprisonment wonld not prevent it,
the additional punishment of losing the seat
would not prevent it. (His Honor here read
the dicta of Mr. Juattco Mellor and Baron
Martin on the subject) That was the opinion
he held, namely, that the statute having de-
clared that two years' imprisonment should
' he the punishment for personation, it did
not .arise for the Court to .say "We do
«ot think it is enough punishment ; we
«hall call in aid the common law, and
oay the candidate shall lose his seat."
for theae reasona ble had thought it necessary
to differ from the Chief Justice. Then again
His Honour had eaid there were suspicious
circumstances conuooted with' the case. He
did not soe any suspicions circumstances
.connected with the case to implicate Dr.
Scott. He simply thought that the petitiouer
had brought forward sufficient evidence to
«all upon the respondent, Dr. Soott, to rebnt
it, bnt as the case, was stopped before he
.could do BO, he (HU Honour) did1- not think
it wonld be right to connect him with it.
This concluded tho special sitting.
The effect of the decision of the Court is
as follows : The petitions against Dr. Soott
and Mr. Keane respectively aro dismissed
with costs against Mr. Horgan.' The petition
egainBt the Sheriff is withdrawn, each party
to pay his Own coats.
$