LYTTELTON PETITION

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12394, 13 March 1926, Page 4

LYTTELTON PETITION

SITTING OF COURT WRITING ON BALLOT PAPERS QUESTIONS OF RESIDENCE 'Per Prees Association. CHRISTCHURCH, March 12. The Electoral Court began the hearing this morning of the petition of James McCombs against the return of M. E. Lyons as member for LytteU ton. The petition of Mr McCombs prays that the ballot-papers be subjected to a further recount, and that petitioner be declared duly elected, inasmuch as a majority of the valid votes were cast in his favour. Mr McCombs objected to the votes ef 19 people on the ground that they were' not residents of Lyttelton. Ho also claimod certain votes that had been disallowed because voters made incorrect marks. The respondent made similar claims. After an adjournment it was announced that certain admissions and abandonments had been made by both sides. The result would be that nine witnesses would be called by the petitioner, and none by the respondent. Harold Wilson Harris, surveyor, gave evidence that certain houses were really in the Ellesmere electorate, and not in Lyttelton. Mr Donnelly (for Mr Lyons) said he had proposed to arrange with his learned friend for admissions from both sides, but he now understood that the matter was one of proof. ' Mr Justice Stringgr said the _ circumstances in the Westland petition were different. Leolin Allison said he resided at Sumner till June 1925, when he removed to Fendaßon. H-is wife applied to be enrolled in the Riooarton electorate before she had been, there three months, anH her application was rejected. Witness applied later, but found that the rolls' were closed.. He and his wifjs both voted in the Riccarton electorate, with absent voters’ permits, for Lyttelton. Henry George Parkes said he usually signed his name-'Harry Parkes. He voted at Woodham road booth with an absent voter’s permit. He was not sure how he signed his application form.

James Nathan Neville, chief returning officer for Lyttelton, said he dis allowed cthe vote of Parkes. Mr Justice Stringer:* “You disallowed the vote because you could not see the similarity of writing?” Witness: “Yes.”

Alter the evidence had been given Mr Donnelly said the disputed votes of a hospital nurse and a school teacher came within the enabling provision defined in the court’s judgment in the Westland case in regard to an elector: who periodically returned to. his home. Mr Justice Ostler: “There might be a distinction between a person who goes out to work and a student.” Mr O’Regan pointed out that the rules of the hospital • said the nurse must reside on the premises. The court adjourned at 12.30 p.m. When the court adjourned the matters to be considered were the question of allowing ballot papers marked with a cross; the matter of two absent voters whose signatures had been questioned and the votes disallowed, and the eligibility of the votes of a nurse and a school teacher employed outside Lyttelton. Mr Donnelly said that because some of the ballot papers had been written on, the Court would look at all the papers. Mr O’Regan said one of the papers had the word “luck” written across it. As the court had allowed a vote on the West Const with the words “Too Trish” on it, the greater should include less. (Laughter.) Mr Justice- Stringer said they would be required to examine all the votes in question. “Possibly they may not On cast in the way you think.” In reply to Mr Justice Stringer counsel said they would be satisfied if the votes were inspected in the preseme of the returning officer, Mod the court then adjourned till 4-p.m. DECISION TO-DAY

The court adjourned at 12.25 to allow of voting papers being examined. It was intended to-resume at 4 p.m., but later on an adjournment until tomorrow was announced. Judgment will probably he given to-day