PLURAL VOTING

Grey River Argus, 12 June 1935, Page 5

PLURAL VOTING

ELECTION PETITION

No Jurisdiction (Per Press Association.) WJELLING-TON, June 10. The hearing of a petition to upse ho Wellington municipai election com menced before Mr Mosley, S.M.. day. The petition’s main request is tha. the rolls bo scrutinised for lb" pur pose of discovering how many corpoi ate bodies voted, and that al! vote: east on their behalf without author ity be disallowed. The petition is opposed bv Alessr.'Huggins and Duncan, candidates a! the election, who contend that lhe petition is invalid, and a nullity, on ‘lie grounds that it is not in any on< of the forms prescribed. ami thaneither the Court nor any Magi Irate ha s jurisdiction lo enlerlain o> - ath'-rwise deal wilh it. The petition inter alia, quotes st <• ion ."»6 of th" Act. which it stales provides that the Returning (tflicer ha 1 selcj'l from the voting papers (he cote of any one person who appearto have received a voting paper at two or more polling places, ami shall disallow every vote appearing to have been given by means of the voting papers so selected. PETITION DISMISSED. (Per Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 11.

After hearing counsel’s arguments on the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the Municipal Elections petition, tin 1 Magistrate. Mr Mosley dismissed the petition. He said th-alt. 'when the petition was first brought to his notice, it appeared to him then abundantly clear that it did not comply with the provisions of the Local Elections and Polls Act. The Court for the hearing of this petition was a special Court, which derived it.-’ jurisdiction from that statute alone.

It was not an inherent jurisdiction in a. Magistrate, under the Magistrate’s Court Act. It was apparent to him, continued Mr Mosley that the petition. while it watf very carefully prepined'. had been misconceived. It was a fact that the form provided in the schedule must be complied with in Older that the Court might have jurisdiction. What was asked for in the petition was. a .'■•crutiny of the voting papers, and nothing else. There wat no prayer, us required in the schedule to the Act, requiring the Magistrate to do something. The Magistrate said that the petition wa.-’ lacking in that rq pect, am] in his oj inion. the words “to like effect” did not in any way justify him in accepting it as complying xvith the form prescribed. It seemed to him that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it unless, in a great measure’, it complied with the form in the Act. He wan very sorry to •bold so. but the case went to the question of jurisdiction, and if there was n<- jurisdiction, tip' Court could not deal with the petition. It was agreed that the deposit should Lie returned to the petitioners.