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

MAORI ELECTION PETITION.

Press Association. Hamilton, May 11. Mr Grace, continuing his evi--dence, said the election was conducted as open voting. There was no secret ballot or bos for votes. He admitted the Act was not Strictly carried out. One deputy signed a tremendous lot of papers, but 'never put the name of the candidate in. Witness rejected the whole lot. A voter could vote at one place and then at another without detection. No roll existed. Several deputies and Maori associates gave evidence detailing .the methods of voting, which, with the exception of one booth, was that a native after answering the usual questions, said whom he wished to vote for. The deputy wrote the name and then signed the jjaper, and his associate controlled it. No Maori asked for a voting paper, and never handled them. At Waitetuna the voting was conducted on the open road, as the deputy could not find a booth. In other instances the poll had taken place in other places than those notified. Eketone’s, evidence went to show a large number |of natives, >especially in the Taranaki district, never knew the election was to be held. When he stumped the country for the purpose of addressing them the natives did not know what he came for. At one polling booth several Maoris went in together, with 20 others hanging round the door. He considered voting papers should have been given the natives prior to the election, as then they would have acted as a check and prevented double voting. No evidence was called on behalf of the respondent. Mr Earle, addressing the Court, laid stress on the fact of the notices not being posted op by the returning officer. Also that as the electors voted before the paper was signed by the Returning Officer, excepting at one booth, the election was invalid. He also contended that no voting paper was a qualification, and as the same was not signed first the elector voted before he was qualified to do so, thus invalidating his vote. Mr Justice Cooper said the qualification was not- the natives’ voting paper, bat the that he was a Maori. The hearing was adjourned till this morning.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/RAMA19090512.2.59

Bibliographic details

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9442, 12 May 1909, Page 8

Word Count
367

MAORI ELECTION PETITION. Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9442, 12 May 1909, Page 8

MAORI ELECTION PETITION. Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9442, 12 May 1909, Page 8

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