EVIDENCE CONCLUDED

Chronicle (Levin), 7 May 1947, Page 5

EVIDENCE CONCLUDED

—Press Association

Counsel Start Submissious To . . Raglaa Court

By Telegraph-

HAMILTON, May ti. Renewed- interest attaehed to the proceedings of the Eleetoral Court today when after some 120,000 words of eviuenee had been recorded, the last wi-i;-ness was dismissed and eounsel's' aadresses began before the Chief Jjastice, •Sir Humphrey O 'Leary, and1 the Senior Puisne Judge-, Sir Archibald Blair. First to make submissions was Mr. T. P. Cleary, senior counsel . for respqnctent, Mr. Baxter. Mr. Cleary reviewea the evidence heard ih support of varxous- categories of objedtions by bora sides and -stated under each classifieation which o-bjections he considered. haa been sustained, which had failed aua which were arguable before the OourB. Beginning shoxtl-y before iunch Mr. Cleary spoke for two and a half hours and had not fmished dealing with tne objections on residential grounds when the Court rose this afternoon. Freq,uent reference was made by.Mr. Cleary as it had been made by counsex on both sides tliroughout the hearing, to' an aspect of what is known as tne Seddon-0 'Brien case. The matter is of importance as it may affect the val'idity of at least six votes in the present petition. Mr. Justice S'tringer and Mr. Justice Ostler lieard the petition in 1926 affecting the Westland seat contested by Mr.- Seddon and: Mr, O 'Brien-. Tne Court then held that an elector 's three months residential qualification in an electorate, although not existing at tne date of application for registration, could nevertheless -be fulfilled if tne period were eompleted before election day. Mr. W. J. Sim, K.C., in opening petxtioner's (-Mr. Johnstone) case in tne present hearing, invited the Court to hold that this deeision was based on its interpretation of a deeision of the full Bench o-f the Supreme Court in the Hawke's Bay petition in 1914 ana therefore invited the Court not to toilow the Seddon-0 'Brien deeision in tnis respect. Mr. Cleary, continuing his submissions after lun-ch, said in the four cases in which he elaimed petitioner had failed to establish that the voter lacked three months' residence in tlie electorate at the time of the election on November 27, 194,(5, the evidence showed in each instance that the voter ariived in Raglan before August 27.. Of respondent's seven objections under tlie same heading, Mr. Gleary said two were not pursued, one name was common to both lists but the other four objections had been proved. Two other votes challenged by respondent in another g-roup must also be disallowed because the voters lacked three months in the electorate. Mr. Cleary said that while two of the voters challenged by respondent were late by only two days in their move into the electorate, the margin was equally narrow in some of petitioner 's cases. Mr. Cleary, reviewing the evidence in these cases, said that if it were elaimed by petitioner that oneelector established the necessary qualification for himself and his wife by the purchase'of stoek in the Raglan electorate on August 27, 1946, although he did not move in until August 29, then it was less reasonable for respondent to argue that aivother elector who had furniture in the electorate from August 21 was equally qualified tlxough he did not take up residence within the boundaries until early September. The next group veviewed by Mr Cleary was of votes rempved from Raglan ano qualified in another electorate. He .conceded that of petitioner 's 24 objections in this elass, ten had been proved while another taken up by petitioner from respondent 's list had also been proved. Five of these objections must faii, One had not been pursued by petitioner ana the other eight were arguable. Of 22. challenges by respondent on the ground of voters' removal ana qualification elsewhere, Mr. Cleary elaimed eight as proved while one name was common to both lists.