PETITION FAILS

Southland Times, Issue 25309, 12 June 1935, Page 8

PETITION FAILS

LOCAL ELECTION QUESTION OF COURT’S JURISDICTION SCRUTINY OF VOTING PAPERS (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, June 11. After hearing counsel’s arguments on the question of jurisdiction of the Court to deal with an election petition, the Magistrate, Mr E. D. Mosley, dismissed the petition. He said that when the petition was first brought to his notice, it appeared to him then, abundantly clear that it did not comply with the provision of the Local Elections and Polls Act. The court for the hearing of the petition was a special court which derived its jurisdiction from that statute alone. It was not an inherent jurisdiction in a Magistrate under the Magistrates Court Act. It was apparent to him, continued Mr Moslev, that the petition, while very carefully prepared, been misconceived. It was a fact that the form provided in the schedule must be complied with in order that the court might have jurisdiction. What was asked for in the petition was a scrutiny of the voting papers, nothing else. There was no prayer as required m the schedule to the Act requiring a Magistrate to do something. The Magistrate said the petition was lacking in that respect and in his opinion th i words to a like effect did not in any way justify him m accepting it as complying with the form prescribed. It seemed to him that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain it unless in a great measure it complied with th e form in the Act. He was sorry to hold so, but the case went to a question of jurisdiction, and if there was no jurisdiction, the court could not deal with the petition. It was agreed that the deposit should be returned to the petitioners.