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
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DUNEDIN ELECTION PETITION.

Press Association. —- Dunedin,. January 21. This morning in the Supreme Court the petition and objections of A. R. Barclay and G. M. Thomson respectively, concerning the Dunedin North .election, were lodged. Mr Barclay’s petition, after citing that the Returning Officer is alleged to have improperly allowed or disallowed votes, tables his reasons as under

(1) Two voters were aliens and were not British subjects when enrolled, and were not entitled to be enrolled; (2) t- even voters are disqualified from voting; (3) three a'oieut voters’ votes should be disqualified according to law; (4) one other vot; should be treated as informal.

The respondent’s objections may be sumrasr’sed as under: —

(1) The six votes mentioned in petiton were properly disallowed by the Returning Officer; (3) iu addition to the votes allowed to Mr Thomsen at the election, he should have received two votes given for him under number 2230, which votes were improperly disallowed by the Returning Officer on the alleged ground that one person had voted in two different polling places, whereas two different persons had voted, for him in two different polling places; (3) the vote of the absent voter recorded in his favour as mentioned in the petition was rightly recorded; (4) it was not correct as alleged in the petition that some ballot papers rejected as informal were valid votes recorded in favour of the petitioner, but some of the ballot papers were valid votes given for the respondent; (5) on the above grounds, and because petitioner should have been disallowed all votes objected to by respondent, the respondent says that the petitioner would not have received a majority of the valid votes recorded; (6) a general recount of votes could not now be made as seventeen of the ballot papers used at the election, and oontaining‘votes given and recorded in respondent’s favour had been abstracted from the custody of the Returning Officer and could not be found.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/RAMA19090122.2.38

Bibliographic details

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9352, 22 January 1909, Page 5

Word Count
324

DUNEDIN ELECTION PETITION. Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9352, 22 January 1909, Page 5

DUNEDIN ELECTION PETITION. Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9352, 22 January 1909, 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