Chanter v Blackwood (No 1) concerned legal questions that Griffith CJ, as the trial judge, had referred to the full court to be answered as a stated case.

88 The question considered by the Court was whether a candidate guilty of an illegal practice as defined in the Commonwealth Electoral Act was disqualified from being elected.

Griffith CJ held that Parliament had prescribed the remedies for illegal practices and that did not include automatic disqualification from sitting.[1]: pp.

56–7  Barton J held that a single act of bribery did not disqualify a candidate, unless the corrupt practices might have affected the result of the election.[1]: pp.

64–5  O'Connor J held that there was no power under the Commonwealth Electoral Act to disqualify a candidate on the ground of misconduct, no matter how great.[1]: pp.

Having answered the separate legal questions, Griffiths CJ then conducted a trial in which he ruled on each of the disputed categories of votes.

[3] The matter returned yet again to the Court on 16 August 1904 where Griffith CJ held that Chanter should be reimbursed his costs of travelling to Melbourne for the hearing, even though he was not required to give evidence.

[4] Maloney v McEacharn (No 1) also concerned legal questions that Griffith CJ, as the trial judge, had referred to the full court to be answered as a stated case.

A large number of postal votes had not been not signed in the presence of a Returning Officer, Electoral Registrar, Justice of the Peace, School Teacher, or a Postmaster.

Postal votes stretched the secrecy of the ballot and had the potential for fraud, thus requiring vigilance and the safeguards provided for by the Act.[2]: pp.

89–90  O'Connor J similarly held that postal votes gave the greatest opportunity for fraud, being probably made "amongst people who cannot identify him and who know nothing about the form in which his name appears on the electoral roll" in which the legislature had been careful to enact safeguards.