High Court of Australia
OF AUSTRALIA. 539
ion of the claim covered by the settled account, judgment H- ate A. ; be entered for the defendants. I agree, therefore, that with Pea:
variations the judgment of the Supreme Court should be Campsere. d, I concur in the form of order suggested by my learned pee &
x the Chief Justice, and in his judgment as to costs. ose Bee:
BrisBaNE
Judgment varied. Soar Co. Lrp
olicitors, for appellant, Flower & Hart. O'Connor J. licitors, for respondents, Foxton, Hobbs & Macnish.
Bd [HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.) ICHARD ARMSTRONG CROUCH . ._ PrrrrionEr; AND LFRED THOMAS OZANNE . i e . RESPONDENT.
CORIO ELECTION PETITION. COURT OF DISPUTED RETURNS.
Parliamentary election—Liability of candidate for acts of his agent—Canvassing H.C. or A. "at entrance to polling booth—Scrutineers—A voiding election—Evidence that 1910. result of election was affected—Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902-1909 (No. 19 ~ of 1902—No. 19 of 1909), secs. 1824, 198a. MELBOURNE,
Sept. 15, 16, Where a candidate at an election is sought to be made responsible for illegal ©?" yy" 1% acts done during the election by his agent, it must be proved that the candidate
either countenanced or directed the doing of those acts. O'Connor J.
Semble, that canvassing for votes on or at the top of the steps leading to a polling booth, is within the prohibition in sec. 1824 of the Commonicealth Hlectoral Act 1902-1909 against canvassing for votes at the entrance to a polling booth, but canvassing between the gate of the land on which the polling booth is and the building itself is not within that prohibition.
H.C. of A.
1910. Ses CrovucH
vw OzANNE.
HIGH COURT
The presiding officers at certain booths wrongly prevented serut the defeated candidate from entering the polling booths,
Held, that the mere fact that at those booths the majority of votes for the successful candidate was larger than his total majority, was not cient ground for avoiding the election in the absence of reasonable gro concluding that the result of the election was affected by the exclusion o scrutineers. 3
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate