ELECTION PETITIONS

Evening Star, Issue 15776, 13 April 1915, Page 4

ELECTION PETITIONS

[Pee United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April 13. The Full Court resumed this morning, when Mr Skerrett, K.C., continued his argurnenti n support of his contention that a roll is conclusive. .Ho proceeded to put his construction on clause 44 of the Legislature Act, 1903, dealing with the absence of voters from a district. The question raised by clause 44, he argued, was not before the Court, neither had the question raised by clause 196 of the same Act anything to do with that raised by clause 44. The Litter, counsel contended, was a separate and independent provision dealing with the exclusion of a person from voting. Section 44 dealt with the removal of a voter from a district, and not with the original caso this was most important, because many of the persons objected to were per. sons" who had been put on the roll by_ the registrar, and had the requisite qualification, but unless the roll was conclusive they would have no right to vote in that district. He asked the Court to observe that the language- of section 44 was precisely similar to that of section 18 of tho Electoral Act, 1893, where the conclusive nature of the roll was beyond all doubt. Further, his learned friend had not quoted any authority to show that an Election Court had a right to disallow the votes of persons put on the roll by the registrar. Mr I). M. Findlay for Mr Vv. T. Jennings, the respondent in the Taumarunui case, argued that suhs.cct.i-on (f) of the Legislature Act, 1908, <li dnot refer to the cases of pea-sons who had a right to be on tho roll, but who were put on a defensive, claim or without a claim of any kind. The words of the subsection wees not so clear and express as to entitle the Court to take away under it tho rights which belong to people who aro not "illegally" on the roll. A person properly enrolled had a right to vote, and the Court had no right to interfere- with that vote. Sir .John Findlay, K.C., in reply, contended that if the sta-t-uto specially stated that certain persons were not. entitled to be on the l"oll, oh at was equivalent to saying that such person has no right to vote. The Act of 1879, which determined the conclusiveness of the roll in Uie Wakanui ease, was radically different to the present law. .Sir John cited the. differences, and argued that it: the earlier Act determined conclusively on the roll, the- present law determined the inconclusiver.ess <ot the roll. All the. votes cast were east subject to review by the election court if on a- petition the validity of the vote is -challenged.