ELECTION PETITION.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13738, 20 May 1910, Page 9

ELECTION PETITION.

INTERESTING CASE AT ASHBURTON. At the Ashburton Magistrate's Court jesterday, before 1 Mr'V. G, Day, S.M., an enquiry was held with resype<# to tho election of five members of the )tanfiitata Road Board. The enquiry was held oh the petition of Mr James Dellow, Mayfield, whose nomination paper as a candiciate had been refused by the returning officer, Mr J. 0. Bell, on tfae ground that it was invalid, oonsequent on tho omission of a date on the paper. "Mr Purnell appeared for Mr Dellow, and MrOrbell for Mr Bell..

Mr Purnell, in opening the case r said Mr I>elk)w had been a member of tho Jtangitata Road Board over twelve years. At the last election he had obtained a nomination papter from the returning officer, and. duly sent the paper in to Mr Bell. Subsequently ho remembered that the paper had not been dated, and went to the returning officer's office and demanded the pajper for the purpose of inserting tho date. Mr Bell refused the request, but gpve Mr Dellow a fresh nomination paper. This paiper was ,ptroperly filled in and endorsed by two ratepayers. The -paper was taken back to Mr Bell's office bevfore noon on the day the nominations closed, but Mr Bell was not 'there at the time. Subsequently Mr Delkw saw Mr Bell and handed him tho second nomination paper, though the hour was after twelve noon, and Mr Bell refused to recognise it as being valid. Counsel submitted that the first nomination fte-per was in order, and further, that the returning offiew should havo handed it baolc when it was demanded; that ho should havo been present at hi? office prior to the time of the closing of the nominations; and that the second nomination paper should have beep, accepted. Mr Orfioll contended that iihe Act had not been complieel with, anel that his client was /perfectly right in not receiving either of the nomination papers presented by Mr Dellow. Tt was a question whether section 8 of the Local Elections Act had boon complied with, and he contended that his client hae' acted strictly in accordance with the section of the Act governing local election.?.

After further argument, the Magistrate said he had no option but to grant the prayer of the petition, and declare the election void. Ho did not think it was a case in which ce>ste should bo given against the. returning officer, and bo won I<l- sirnnlv declare the election void, and order that the money impounded should be returned to the petitioner.