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
Article image
Article image

UPPER HUTT BOROUGH

Official Recount Of Votes In Council Election The magisterial recount of tlie votes cast in the Upper Hutt Borough Council election on May 27, made on the application of Arthur Birkett, who’was within three votes of the eighth successful candidate, was completed by Air. Goulding, S.AI., last week. Though the figures were altered in the recount, it did not. affect the election of the eight councillors who were placed at the head of the poll by the returning officer. By the recount, Cr. Purvis; who beaded the poll, had his figures reduced by IS, but still remains in pride of place. Cr. Gray had his figures reduced by 32 votes, >and moves from second to third place. ' Cr. Cameron had nine votes taken from him, and moves from sixth’ to eighth place. Ten voters were disqualified on account of apparent dual voting. It is of interest to note the difference in Hie provision of the Local Elections and Polls Act. 1925. which governs local body elections, and those of the Electoral Act, 1927, which governs Parliamentary elections. The former provides that the rolls shall be compared, and if it appears the same person has received a voting paper at, two or more polling places the returning officer shall disallow every vote appearing to have been so given, so that the returning officer has no option hut to disqualify the apparent plural vote without further investigation, whereas the Electoral Vet provides tlie additional words before disqualifying the vote, “and if satisfied beyond doubt of the identity of the person so voting.” This leads to the invariable practice of returning officers in Parliamentary elections investigating whether the apparent plural vote was not due to a clerical error before disqualifying the vote. . Following is the result of the official count with tlie figures announced by the returning officer in parentheses:— Successful: Purvis. 1443 (1461); Grange, 1261 (1203); Grav, 1250 (12S1); Lancaster. 1175 (USS); Row. 1136 (1143); Taylor, 1085 (1080): Clvma. 1084 (1090): Cameron. 1082 (1091).

T’nsuccessfnl: Birkett. 1070 (1080): Keys. 1002 <1004): Polson, 055 (1)74): Hayden, 805 ( 885); Richardson, 851 (865): Spiers, 851 (808) : Guthrie. 834 (845); . Price, 80!) (801); Nicolaus, 749 (748). Informal. 67.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19440628.2.68

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 232, 28 June 1944, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
365

UPPER HUTT BOROUGH Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 232, 28 June 1944, Page 6

UPPER HUTT BOROUGH Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 232, 28 June 1944, Page 6

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