ELECTION PETITION

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 26, 31 January 1923, Page 5

ELECTION PETITION

MR. PARR CONTRADICTED.

<M TELMRAPB.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.) AUCKLAND,, 30th January. The suggestion that there has been any informality in connection with the Eden election petition proceedings (as suggested by the Hon C. J. Parr) is controverted by Mr. A. G. Quartley, counsel for petitioners. He stated this evening' that according to the rules of, the Court the petitioner before serving respondent is required to wait until notice .has been received from the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Wellington acknowledging receipt of the petition. Service of the petition on the respondent has to be made withrn seven days after receipt of' that notice. In the present case the petition was filed on 10th January, but notice of its receipt in Wellington was not given to the petitioner until 22nd January. Efforts were then made to serve the respondent, and service was effected on 25th January, well within the limit of seven days. There the responsibility of the petitioner ended, notice of trial being a matter for the Court. As to the statement that; Mr. Parr had waived his rights, Mr. Quartley said the petitioner asserted■ that there had not been any informality. In any- event in a telegram dated 25th January, Mr. Parr expressly stated that he reserved any rights under the Act or regulations. Whether Mr. Parr received notice of the trial before he was served with the petition he conld not say, but it was a fact that a copy of the petition was, on request, sent to his office in Auckland on the flay the petition was filed., An application for the adjournment of the trial to a later date than 7th February had been filed by Mr. Parr, and answering affidavits filed by the petitioner would be dealt with by the Court.