The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-11-15 00:00:00

DUDLEY,

SCHOOL BOARD.—THE SURCHARGE QuESTioN.—
On Monday evening a monthly meeting of the
above Board was hell, the Rev. Dr. Cosens pre-
siding. After much formal business, Mr. Billing
asked if it was true that the Local Government
Board had remitted the surcharge of £5O. made
upon the Conservative members of the Board for
the legal costs of objecting to Mr. Tanfield's vote.
—The Chairman replied that the report was true;
and Mr. Billing then asked if the correspondence
between the surcharged and the Local Government
Board was to be published for the benefit of the
ratepayers, who would now have to pay the £l5O.
—Mr. Terry, in whose hands with those of the Rev.
J. J. Slade the correspondence rested, said he did
not propose to publish the correspondence ; and
Mr. Billing then gave notice that next week he
should move that the correspondence be given to
the public.—The Chairman, Mr. Garratt, and Mr.
Terry held that the matter was a private one.—Mr.
Tantield said the public would nut be satisfied.
The Lord Chief Justice had ruled that the action of
the majority was not legal, and that his (Mr.
Tanfield's) costs ought to be paid. The auditor
had surcharged the Conservative majority, and
now the Local Government Board had forgiven
them. The Lord Chief Justice naver intended
that the costs should come out of the ratepayers'
pockets. The public ought to know that ex pane
statemeuts; had induced the Local Government
Board to alter the decision of the auditors,—The
Chairman was of opinion that the decision of the
Board was tinal.—Mr. Terry said he could not for-
get that the origin of all the trouble was the
illegal act of Mr. ranfield.—Mr. Tanfield said this
was a glaring misstatement. The question of his
right to vote had been settied before the objection
to his vote, and so he was compelled to go to the
Court of Queen's Bench, for the Conservatives had
made a compact to refuse him his vote.—The
Chairman said Mr. Tantield had no need to have
gone to the Court of Queen's Bench if he had
waited for the reply of the Education Department.
Mr. Ta,nfield said he was threatened with election,
and the threat of a policeman was held over him.--
The Chairman, Mr. earratt, and Mr. Terly
repudiated such language, and said Mr. Tanfield
was taking the language of one member for the
whole of the party.—Mr. Billing; And the party
followed the advice of an amateur lawer.—The
subject then dropped, it being understood that
Mr. Billing's notice of motion stands good.
INTERESTING TO PRESIDING OFFICERS AT ELEC-
TIONS.—At the recent election for town councillor,
at Dudley, Mr. Robert Preece (Liberal) was defeated
in the ward of St. James by . i
sixteen votes. This
was the only ward in the borough n which the
Liberals were not successful. and at the declaration
of the poll it was publicly stated that the presiding
officer (Alderman Wilkinson) had not opened one
of tt e booths until half-past nine o'clock in the
morning. There was a meeting of Liberals the
same evening, and it aas then agreed that Counsel's
opinion its to the legality of the electioa should be
taken. Mr. R. N. Ha I, as a solicitor and hon
secretary of the Liberal Associstion, drew up a.
case and submitted the same to Mr. Alfred Young.
At the conclusion of the case the counsel was asked:
—(1) Whether, cm the ground that the poll was not
declared open at the legal hour, a petition might
with success be presentA against the return of the
returning officer as to the result of the election, and
the election declared void. (2) Whether Mr. PI eeee,
the def,ated candidate, should be the sole petitioner
and the presiding officer the only respondent. (3)
Whethtr it will be requisite to prove that vottrs who
presented themselves at hat station b.ltweea 9 and 9.
30 a.m. lost their votes tin ough the iiiisma ae
meat af the presiding officer, they having no other
opportunity of recording their votes.—On Tuesd,ty
Mr. Alfred Young sent his opinion. It is as follows
:—"This is not in my opinion a case for a petition,
hut one for a mandamus to hold an election. The
Municipal Corporation Act (5 and 6 William IV., C.
76, s. 32) provides that the poll shall be opened
&Om 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. This has not been done, and
therefore no proper election has been held. The
appliestion for a mandamus should be against tie
presiding officer, and the Mayor, supported by
affidavits, &c., &c.—The Liberal Association state
that they have plenty of evidence to show that
voters presented themselves at 9, and at later
periods until 9.30, and then returned to their occu-
pation without voting; and further that such voters
had no other chance of recording their votes.