LYTTELTON SEAT

Evening Star, Issue 19197, 13 March 1926, Page 9

LYTTELTON SEAT

KR rein's PETITION [Pee United Pbess Association.! CHRISTCHURCH, March 12. The hearing of tho petition of Ml James M’Comfas against the return of Mr M. H. Uyous as member for Lyttelton commenced in tho Supremo Court to-day before Mr Justice Stringer and Mr Justice Ostler. Mr R. J. O’Regan with Mr W. J. Hunter appeared for petitioner, and Mr A. T. Donnelly with Mr R, H. Livingstone for the respondent. The court was engaged this morning in hearing evidence and argument on tho petition, and then adjourned to permit of an examination of the ballot papers. Subsequently a second adjournment was made until 10 a.m. to-morrow. Mr M’Combs, in his statement in support of the petition, objected to the votes of fifteen persons on the ground that they were not entitled to be enrolled as electors, not being resident iii the district. Ho also objected to tho votes of six persons whoso names had been retained on the Lyttelton roll, although they bad lived outside the electorate for'the three months preceding tho closing of the rolls. One vote was challenged on the ground that the voter had not resided Tor one year in New Zealand. Mr M’Combs claimed as valid the votes of three persons who had struck out Mr Lyons’s name, but had made other marks on the face of tli e ballot paper. These votes were disallowed by the returning officer. Three other votes rejected by the returning officer because of initials or other marks made on the back of tho ballot paper M’Combs also claimed as valid.

Thirty persons had voted by placing a cross against one name, and nineteen of those put a cross opposite M’Combs’s name. All these votes were disallowed, hut Mr M’Combs claimed they were valid votes. He claimed also the votes of three absentees who were not able to record their votes, and objected to ono other which the returning officer had allowed.

Respondent objected to the votes of eight persons on the ground that they were not British subjects. He claimed also one vote as having been improperly disallowed. Opening for the petitioner, Mr O’Regan said that since judgment was given in the Westland petition the issues had been considerably simplified mid narrowed, and the petitioner approached the court with some degree of confidence. In practically every election field in New Zealand there was a fringe of votes that could be questioned, hut this was never done when the margin between tho candidates was ample. At the magisterial recount in connection with tho Lyttelton election 121 votes had been rejected—thirty because of crosses against the names of tho candidates. These votes could bo classified ns follows:

Both names struck out, 40. Neither name struck out, 41. Cross opposite both names, 1. Cross opposite M'Comhs’s name, 19. Cross opposite Lyons’s name, 11. Ballot papers rejected because of something written on them, !). As far as the informal votes were concerned, their Honors had to deal with thirty in which the electors were clearly entitled to vote. Of these, nineteen votes were marked with a cross against the name of. Mr M‘Combs and eleven with a, cross against the name of Mr Lyons. It was the fortune of war. If the votes had been allowed at tho recount Mr M'Combs would have been elected by two votes. Petitioner watf also objecting to. the votes of thirteen persons who were not entitled to bo on the roll. They resided in other electorates, and voted in Lyttelton, and counsel would ask that their votes ho disallowed. Evidence was called by Mr O’Regan to prove the contentions raised about the place of residence of a voter. The points in dispute were place of residence, permanence or otherwise of residence outside the electorate, and details concerning applications for absent voters’ permits. I'wo of Mr M'Combs's objections concerned probationer nurses who, ho claimed, had voted in tho Lyttelton electorate, where their parents resided. It was claimed that they must vote in Christchurch South, where the hospital was situated. One vote had “Luck” written across it. Mr O’Regan claimed that because a vote with “'Too Irish” written on it had been allowed in the Westland case this vote must ho allowed in Lyttelton. Tho court adjourned at 12,25 to allow of the voting papers being examined. It was intended to resume at 4 o’clock, hut later an adjournment until to-mor-row was announced. Judgment will probably bo given to-morrow.