MOTION TO UPSET ELECTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2960, 10 November 1925, Page 2

MOTION TO UPSET ELECTION.

Writ of Mandamus issued by Mr. Hollings. CLAIMS ONLY NOMINATION LAWFULLY RECEIVED BY RETURNING OFFICER FOR MANAWATU. A sensational turn has taken place in connection with the recent Manawatu General Election, Mr. Philip Lusoombe Hollings, the Nationalist candidate, having filed with the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court, Palmerston North, a writ of mandamus, praying that the Returning Officer be compelled to declare Mr. Hollings elected unopposed on the ground that the plaintiff’s nomination was the only nomination in the defendant’s hands by noon of the tenth day before the day appointed for the poll. The date set down for hearing the plaintiff’s claim is Friday, 13th November, at the Supreme Court Palmerston North.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM,

The following is plaintiff’s statement of Claim: —

The plaintiff says: —(1) That in the election of a member of Parliament for the Manawatu Electorate, the date appointed for the Poll was the 4th day of November, 1925, and the defendant was the Returning Officer duly appointed for the district of such election. (2) The Legislature Act, 1908, as amended by section 29 of the Legislature Amendment Act, 1910, directs that nominations of candidates for election must reach the Returning Officer not later than noon of the tenth day before the -day appointed for fhe poll. (3) The plaintiff was, and is a duly qualified candidate for election and was duly nominated. (4) The tenth day before the day appointed for the poll was 25th day of October, 1925, and the only nomination that reached the Returning Officer before noon of that day was the plaintiff’s nomination which was already in the defendant’s hands with the required deposit. (5) There being no other nomination within the time pres-

eribed by the said Statute, the plaintiff claimed that it was. the duty of the defendant as Returning Officer to declare the plaintiff elected unopposed; demand was made upon him to do so and the defendant neglected and refused to do so and still neglects and refuses to do so. (6) The defendant unlawfully accepted two other nominations after tlie time fixed by the said Statute had expired, one on the 26th day of October, the other on the 27th day of October, both of which, the plaintiff contended, were too late, and the defendant unlawfully proceeded with an election poll which was held on the 4th day of November, 1925, and it is contended by the plaintiff that such Election poll was unlawful and tlierefore void and of no effect. (7) The plaintiff says: That thus Honourable Court will order the issue of a writ of Mandamus against the defendant as Returning Officer to compel him to declare the plaintiff elected unopposed on the ground that the plaintiff’s nomination was the only nomination in the defendant’s hands by noon of the tenth day before the day appointed for the poll.