Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

THE CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION.

♦ Mr George's Petition. This morning Mr Beawick, representing Messrs Harper and Co., solicitors for Mr Eden George, lodged his petition against the Christchurch Election, with the Beturning Officer, Mr George Leslie Lee. Mr J. B. Fisher was present as solicitor for Mr Lee. Mr George has paid the sum of .£2OO into the Bank of New Zealand to the credit of the Election Petitions Act, 1881, Trust Fund, as security. The petition is to be forwarded at once to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, Wellington* The following is a copy of the petition : — "In the Supreme Court of New Zealand 'The Election Petitions Act 1880 ' Election for the Electoral District of the City of Christchurch holden on the ninth day of October 1891 "To his Honor the Chief Justice of the said Court The petition of Eden George of the City of Christchurch in the Colony of New Zealand photographer whose name is subscribed : 1. Your petitioner Eden George is a person who claims to have had a right to be returned at the above election. 2. And your petitioner states that a poll for the election was holden on the 9th day of Oct. 1891 when Ebenezer Sandford and John Tippett Smith claimed to be candidates and the Beturning Officer has declared the said E. Sandford duly elected. 3. And your petitioner says that pursuant to the provision of the Election Acts Amendment Act 1890 and being a duly registered elector for the electoral district for the city of Christchurch he gave to the Beturning Officer a good and sufficient nomination paper as by law required nominating him as a candidate for the sbid election to be held of a member for the said electoral district and that suoh nomination paper together with your petititioner's consent to be so nominated reached the said Beturning Officer on the Ist day of October 1891 being not les3 than seven days before the day appointed for the poll namely the said 9th day of October 1891. 4. That at the time of sending in his consent to be so nominated your petitioner deposited with the Beturning Officer the sum of .£lO as by law required. 5. No other nominations of candidates for the election other than your petitioner's were given or transmitted to the Returning Officer so as to reach him not less than seven days before the day appointed for the poll viz. the 9th day of October 1891 as by law required. 6. That on the second day of October 1891 the eaid Ebenezer Sandford and John Tippett Smith gave or transmitted to the Returning Officer nomination papers respectively nominating them as candidates for the said election. 7. That such nomination papers or either of them did not reach the Beturning Officer not less than seven days before the day appointed for the poll nor did the said Ebenezer Sandford and John Tippett Smith or either of them signify to the said Beturning Officer hia consent to be so nominated nor did they or either of them deposit with or remit to the said Returning Officer the sum of .£lO as by law required within the time prescribed. 8. That on the second day of October 1891 I delivered to the said Beturning Officer a notice protesting against any nominations being received after the first day of October 1891 a copy of which notice is as follows :— 9. That on the third day of October 1881 I delivered to the Beturning Officer a notice that I objected to the nomination papers of the said Ebenezer Sandford and John Tippett Smith being received upon the ground that such nomination papers did not reach the Returning Officer until the second day of October 1891 that date being less than seven days before the day appointed for the said election. 10. That on the third day of October 1891 1 delivered to the Returning Officer a notice that as I was the only candidate duly nominated I required him to declare me duly elected aB a member for the Baid electoral district by public notice to be given on or before the day appointed for taking the poll viz. the ninth day of October 1891 upon the ground that no person other than your petitioner was duly nominated and consented to be nominated as a candidate for the said election and deposited the sum of .£lO as by law required within the time prescribed. Your petitioner ought to have been declared duly elected as member for the said electoral district. Wherefore your petitioner prays that it may be determined that neither the said Ebenezer Sandford nor the said John Tippett Smith were duly nominated as candidates for the Baid election and that the said Ebenezer Sandford was not duly ' elected or returned as member for the said ! electoral district and that the said Eden i George was duly elected and ought to have ' been returned and that this honorable Court will certify accordingly."

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS18911024.2.38

Bibliographic details

THE CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION., Star, Issue 7303, 24 October 1891

Word Count
834

THE CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION. Star, Issue 7303, 24 October 1891

Working