OAMARU ELECTION PETITION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 28 March 1923, Page 5

OAMARU ELECTION PETITION

HEARING RESUMED (United Press Association). WELLINGTON, This Day. The hearing of the Oamaru flection Jetition was resumed to-day, when the udges gave their reserved decision regarding the point raised by counsel for the respondent as, to whether the petition was in order or not. The Chief Justice said the facts of the case were not in dispute. The petition had been duly presented on 17th January and at time of presentation £2O was deposited. Lee stated in the affidavit that he handed the returning officer this sum and requested him to pay it into the Bank of New Zealand at Oamaru and send the receipt cn to Wellington. That was really to comply with Rule 22. Lee did not use words as to what account the monev was to be paid into. The returning officer paid it into the Public Account of the Dominion and not into the special account. Lee had no power over the returning officer as to the control of the money. The latter , did not pay the money into the account under the special ■ rule, but that was no concern of petitioner. Tlie motion should be dismissed. • Mr Justice Arlarhs concurred. Sir- John Findlay said the scrutinising of . the ballot papers had been held yesterday, and the papers which were considered informal were at present in Court. The papers had been divided. In Class 1 the deleting lines went through the name “Page” but did not go through the name “Lee.” Class 2 was where the line did not cancel any letter in the name “Lee.” It went through both Christian names. In Class 3 the deleting line did not touch any; letter of the name Lee. In all cases they said the votes were informal. There were eight in Class 1, 21 in Class 2, and 10 in Class 3. All these were counted, for Macphersoh, whereas they Should have been informal. Class 4 of the voting papers produced was presented to show the caprices of various voters. Class 5 consisted of an absent voter’s, paper in, which the declaration was not signed as required by the Act. Class 6 consisted of one paper where the .ballot paper was written hv the returning officer and the paper was allowed. This section of .informal votes included two which bore erasures, the voter having., alternated to erase his striking out line and put in another, and one paper where a cross was put through the name “Lee.” They claimed the vote mentioned first and held that the paper with the cross was an indication that the voter favoured the name on which he put the cross. The Chief Justice said it was to be regretted that the stupidity of the people who printed the ballot papers had resulted in non-compliance with the provisions of the Statute. Mr Skerrett, opening for the respondent, argued*that the disputed votes should be accepted, because passed by 'tho returning officer in favour of the respondent. The decision of the returning officer was .conclusive as to a vote and could not be upset by a recount.