THE CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 6752, 5 February 1892, Page 2

THE CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION.

EDEN GSORGE’d PETITION.

(By Teeegbaph.)

CHRISTCHURCH, Feb 4.

Sir Robert Stout called no witnesses Mr Harper contended that the nominations should have been sent in before October 2nd, and the Order in-0,, unoil was \ultra vires. Mr George had lodged his nomination and paid the deposit within the statutory time; he also lodged his objections before the returning officer advertised the nominations. Briefly, the petitioner claimed, first, he was duly nominated; second, no others were duly nominated. The Order-in Council validating the nominations was issued after Mr George had objected, and only one day before the election. It professed to cure an “ accidental misfeasance,” which was a contradiction of terms. Misfeasance was a wrongful doing of a legal act, and could not bo acoidenta’. In the election petition case Sir Robert Stout contended that an irregularity such as that alleged was not sufficient to causa the election to be void unless it ware shown that tha constituency had been deprived of an opportunity of pronouncing on the merits of the candidates. In the second place if an irregularity existed it had been cured by the Order-in-Council. The point which the Court had to consider was whether such steps had been taken es would allow the constituency to exercise its voice. The main question was not whether there had been a breach of the law, but whether the result of the election had been affected by the irregularity. Mr Donnelly cited authorities, and Mr stringer replied on behalf of tho petitioner. The court reserved its judgment till 9 30 on Saturdoy morning.