THE CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 6751, 4 February 1892, Page 3

THE CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION.

EDEN OBOBGE’d PETITION. (By Tblbgbaph.) CHRISTCHURCH, Feb. 4. The hearing of Mr Eden George’s petition against Mr Bbenezer Sandford’s election for Christchurch began to-day before Justices Denniston and Williams. There is a strong bar engaged Messrs Harper, Stringer and Cohen for petitioner, and Sir R. Stout and Mr Donnelly against. The petition alleged that Messrs Sandford, J. T, Smith and George were candidates, that peti-

tioner’u nomination was lodged seven clear days before the election, and that those of the others were not. George claims that he should have been declared elected instead of Sandford. The facta were admitted. ©. L- Lee deposed to receiving Mr George’s nomination on October let, and those of Sandford and Smith on October 2nd. The election took place on October 9th, and Mr Sandford was declared elected. Mr George had been a candidate at several elections. At the general election ho got 119 votes, in 1889 he received

184 votes, and in 1887 113 votes. The petitioner deposed that after finding the nominations of the other candidates were not in time he lodged a protest and claimed the election, with the Returning Officer, and afterwards took no part in the election though he addressed a public meeting as member f ->r Christchurch. At the polling he had no scrutineers. There was no other evidence for the petitioner. Sir B. Stout argued that as the wnt was not produced it was impossible to say the date fixed for the election, and the court could not go on. Judge WiUiams said if necessary the court would adjourn for the production of the writ. , . _ Sir B. Stout quoted an Order-in-Oouncl validating Mr Sandford’s election. Beyond this, the nominations of Mr Sandford and Mr Smith were valid, as they had in September advertised in the papers their intention of standing, and their nominations were in pursuance of these notifications.