ELECTION PETITIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 262, 15 April 1915, Page 3

ELECTION PETITIONS.

ARGUMENT BEFORE THE FULL COURT. '.'"-' :: HEARING CONCLUDED. DECISION UESKKVEI). f!y Telegraph.— Press association, „. T , Wellington, April 14. _ Sir John Findlay, for the petitioners m the Bay of Islands ease, submitted that the Wairarapa ease was \wrongly itcwded and that the time of a petition was not governed by the endorsement of the writ, but bv the public declaration of the result of the poll. Mr. Justice Edwards said he did not think the Wairarapa case need trouble' them at all. There the court decided' that the endorsement of the writ was the declaration of the poll, but the pros- j ent law prescribes a special form in which the declaration must he 'made, so that the positions were not parallel. Sir Robert Stout remarked that it was better not yet to assume that that was the opinion of the court. Sir J. Findlay, continuing, contended that everything pointed to the public declaration being necessary;. The public had no right to obtain from the electoral department the date of tho endorsement on the writ, and could not know when the petition could be lodged., but could know when the public declaration was made, and therefore the public was put on its guard. Assuming the Wairarana case was rightly decided the legislation has been altered since. Now the public declaration of the result of the poll was necessary, and nothing could reasonably ho done in the way of lodging a petition until the result of the poll was made known. This was forcibly exempli-, fied in the Hawke's Bay case, where Mr.' Campbell's petition was largely based 1 on, matters disclosed by the 'recount, which could not be known when the writ was endorsed. Where recounts took place it was quite conceivable that owing to the delay a candidate might lose his right to petition if the time ran from the endorsement of the writ, and that was never contemplated by the legislature. Such a position was new, and could not have arisen when the Wairarapa case was tried. Wellington, Last Night. Resuming after lunch, Mr. Levi followed in support of Sir John Findlay, K.C., contending that after the recount the returning officer had to make not, an amendment of his original declaration of the poll, but an amended declaration which superseded the first declaration. The second document then became ihe point from which any petition must start, because it is the ony declaration existing. From the point of public convenience, the time must date from tbc declaration of poll, as that is the only information the public h'ive of the state of the poll, and unless full information is available it is i!iipo\s!l>!;! adequately to prepare a petition. Mr. Johnstone, for Mr. C. T\. Wi'a-m. petitioner in the Taumarumii case. subniiltcd that it was imperative that those entitled to petition should have some public notification of the date from which their rights_ began. Such could, not lie obtained from ihe endorsement of the writ, and could only be obtained from the public declaration' of the result of the poll. Mr. Rkerreit, in reply, submitted that the public declaration of the result of the poll was not an etl'ective act. It wtis not a certificate of election, the certificate of election being the return of the writ. The statement in the declaration served no usefi.l legal purpose. p>-o-vi.uVns relating to it being merely divetor,. All that the public declaration did was to inform the public of how the election had gone, and secondly to enable petitioners to know when their | rights commenced. He agreed that tl.cS public declaration fixed tin 1 time from | which a petition may be lodged, but the question was, what was the declaration' His point was that it was the original declaration. Where no alteration \v:i< made in the relative posi'.hm of candidates the amended declaration did 'tot more than alter the figures, which was comparatively unimportant, as the aU f(ration in the. figures might only app ; y to informal votes. If the amended declaration altered the t,/".ginal declaration only in immaterial points, how could it be said to supersede the original dechua- j tion in its material parts? , This concluded the hearing, .and the I Court reserved its decision in all eases. Subject to (he decision of the Full Court, it \\as agreed to-day between the judges of (lie Election Courts and eouesr| engaged that Urn Bay of Islands pe:.i tiou ease be taken at Kaikohc on I'Viday, 30th April, and the Taumarmuu case vat Auckland on sth May. \ ========== I \