Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RAGLAN ELECTORAL COURT

COUNSELS’ ADDRESSES ARE NOW BEING HEARD DECISION OF A COURT IN 1»2« FREQUENTLY QUOTED. (P.A.) Hamilton, May 6. Renewed interest was attached to the proceedings of the Electoral Court to-day, when, after some 120,000 words of evidence had been recorded, the last witness was dismissed and the counsels’ addresses began before the Chief Justice (Sir Humphrey O’Leary) and the senior puisne Judge (Sir Archibald Blair). The first to make submissions was Mr. T. P. Cleary, senior counsel for respondent, Baxter. Mr. Cleary reviewed the evidence heard in support of the various categories of objections by both sides, and stated, under each classification, which objections he considered had been sustained, and which had failed, and which were arguable before the Court. Beginning shortly before lunch, Mr. Cleary spoke for two and a-half hours, and had not finished dealing with objections on residential grounds when the Court rose this afternoon. SEDDON—O’BRIEN CASE. Frequent reference was made by Cleary, as it had been made by counsel on both sides throughout the hearing, to an aspect of what is known as the Seddon-k)’Brien case. The matter is of importance, as it may affect the validity of at least six votes in the present petition. Mr. Justice Stringer and Mr. Justice Ostler heard the petition in 1926 affecting the Westland seat, contested by Mr. Seddon and Mr. O’Brien. The court then held that an elector’s three months residential qualification in an electorate, although not existing at the date of the application for registration could, nevertheless, be fulfilled if the period were completed before the election day. Mr. W. J. Sim, K.C., in opening for the petitioner (Johnstone) in the present hearing, invited the Court to hold that this decision was based on a misinterpretation of the decision of the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in a Hawke’s Bay petition in 1914, and, therefore, invited the Court not to follow the Seddon-O’Brien decision in this respect.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WC19470507.2.54

Bibliographic details

Wanganui Chronicle, 7 May 1947, Page 5

Word Count
324

RAGLAN ELECTORAL COURT Wanganui Chronicle, 7 May 1947, Page 5

RAGLAN ELECTORAL COURT Wanganui Chronicle, 7 May 1947, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert