DISPUTED ELECTIONS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 92, 21 April 1915, Page 5

DISPUTED ELECTIONS.

THE FINALITY OF THE ROLL. Per Press Association. Wellington. April 20. The'Full Court gave judgment this morning on the final question in the election cases. It held that the electoral roll is not conclusive where the question of status is concerned, hut

is one of procedure merely-. The question before the court was whether the electoral roll is conclusive or whether the Court can go behind the roll and remove the names of disqualified persons.

I The Court, after tracing the history of the legislation summed up in the following words:—

“We are of opinion that an Electoral Court, acting under section 196, sub-section (h) of the Legislature Act. 1908, must disallow the votes of (1) all persons who are by the statuses disqualified to he registered or to continue to be registered as voters by reason of some defect in the status or I title prescribed; (2) all persons whose j names the registrar is directed to erase or remove from the roll independently of qualification, and which he has failed to remove. The names of all such persons if on the roll are illegally there. “We include in these categories, without endeavouring to exhaust them—(l) infants, (2) persons who are not British subjects by birth or naturalisation in New Zealand, or (31 Maoris other than half-castes, (-1) persons of unsound mind, (5) persons convicted, as expressed in section 38, (6) persons who have not been resident in New Zealand for the requisite time. (7) persons who have not resided in the electoral district for which they claim to vo f e for one month immediately preceding their registration on the roll of the district. <Bt persons whose names are directed to he removed under section 61 of the Act of 1908 on proof that the necessary conditions were satisfied. (9) persons whose names ought to have been erased under the provisions for purging the roll, or HOl unddr section •17 of the Defence Amendment Act, 1912.” Tim Court held that where a person was rmalified to be registered mere irregularities of procedure, such as unwitnessed claim, etc., did not, empower the Court to remove the voter’s name. There m” 1 be some absence of rmalifieaf ■ r, n. The eneofm-n of costs in -'ll oq was reserved for the Flection Courts or the Supreme Court.