Accusations that the Hamilton Corporation secretary wrongly interpreted election laws were dropped in Supreme Court yesterday.

Sonia Grant, who lost out in an October election to Sutherland Madeiros by 124 votes to his 161, alleges that Kelly Miller, secretary for the Corporation of Hamilton and the registering officer for the election, and returning officer John Cooper wrongly interpreted the law, allowing companies, associations and partnerships to change the name of the person or nominee registered to vote on their behalf after the mayoral election date was announced on October 6.

She further claims that the numbering of 18 ballot papers was an illegal practice which could have led to voters being identified.

Yesterday, Ms Miller told Chief Justice Richard Ground that she received an e-mail from Mr. Cooper on October 19 stating that he believed voters should be able to change the person they are nominating to vote on their behalf after the election date was made public, something that has not been done before.

She explained that she consulted with several lawyers, including Corporation of Hamilton lawyers, to see if Mr. Cooper's legal opinion was correct because the decision was hers to make.

Ultimately she concluded that he was right and added the new nominees to the register late on October 25 — the day before the election.

She denied informing Mr. Madeiros that she was considering allowing people to change nominees, but said he could have found out as Mr. Cooper mentioned that election officials were thinking about it during an television interview.

She also said he was in the Mayor's room talking with someone else when she was discussing the matter with Mr. Cooper and could have overheard it.

Ms Miller said she informed Miss Grant on October 23 that Mr. Cooper had given the opinion that nominees should be allowed to change after notice of the election was given, but that no decision had been made on the matter.

She notified both politicians of her final decision, to include the nominees, on the morning of the election and neither objected to it.

After further legal arguments, Miss Grant's lawyer Alan Newman QC conceded that Ms Miller had not acted unlawfully when she added the new nominees to the register.

Accusations that the Mayor of Hamilton, Mr. Madeiros, was involved in election interference were also dropped on Monday.

Yesterday, his lawyer, Alan Dunch, said that much of Miss Grant's case had been conceded during the course of the hearing. He also argued that she had failed to object to the process at the appropriate time, when each of the nominees who had been added to the register came to vote.

If she had objected they would have had to make an oath swearing that they were legally allowed vote. On Tuesday Miss Grant said she did not make those objections because: "There was no way I was going to be challenging nominees and eliminating any possibility of securing their vote."

Mr. Dunch said this stance was not right and that she had been afforded a fair process but chose not to avail of it. He added that because Miss Grant did not believe nominees could be added once an election was called she chose not to canvass and find out if her supporters needed to change their nominees.

His client, on the other hand, did approach two of the 18 people who changed their nominees after the election date was called, even though no final decision had been made on the matter.

The hearing continues today.