ASHBURTON LICENSING POLL.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11501, 6 February 1903, Page 5

ASHBURTON LICENSING POLL.

THE PETITION DISMISSED

The heaiing of the petition praying that the recent local option poll in Ashburton niight be declared void was conclnded at the Courthouse, Ashbnrton, yesterday, before the Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr C. A. Wray. Mr T. W. St.ringer, Mr F. Wilding, and Mr G. M. Watson appeared in support of the petition, Mr George Harper and Mr T. (». Russ<;ll appeared for the objectors, and Mr C. W. Purnell for the Eeturning Officer. Much interest was taken in the proceedings, and the Courthouse was crowded throughout the day. Mr Stringer, in oj«ning, said that he only proposed to lead evidence bearing on two points of the alleged irregularities— that of the overcrowding of booths, and the non-delivery of the local option papers and electoral papers simultaneously. He thought there could be no question but that in some cases there was no attempt made to deliver the papers simultaneously.

Edward Flatgate Harris, who was the first witness culled, stated that he resided at Ashburton, and was an elector of the district, and voted a-; the last election at Hampstead booth. He voted between three and four o'clock. There were over thirty people in the booth at the time. He was about half an hour in the booth- before he got his ballot pap;rs.

To Mr Kussell—The booth was about 40ft by 50ft. Thert' was great confusion in the interior of the" booth, and there was a pile of forms in front of the scrutineers' table. The people in the room were trying their hardest to get their numbers. \n addition t,o those inside there was a -big cr,owd outside. As far as he was concerned he w;is delayed about fifteen or twenty minutes.

To the Magistrate—He did not think anyone was prevented from voting by reason of the overcrowding. William Patrick Daiy, a grocer's assistant, and a district elector, gave evidence that he voted at the Hampstead booth in the afternoon. The booth was very much overcrowded, and there were about thirty electors in ihv booth. The electors were jostling one another, and there wag a good deal of scrambling in order to get voting papers. He voted himself, but one or two went away without voting, for they were unable to -wait. To Mr Russell— B'.e saw no drags arrive, and he could -hot say whether the overcrowding was caused by the sudden arrival of a. number <if electors who arrived in drags. H6 was in the room a quarter of an hour before he got his voting papers, and he had to push his way through in order to get finished in the" time. The man, who would not wait, was a stranger to him. This man told him outside that ho had been waiting for some time, and could not get in, said was going away. Only the one man had told him that he could not vote. He did not hear the Returning Officer ordering the room to be cleared.

John Burgess, deputy-returning officer at Mayfield, eaid that Mr Cooper was the licensing returning officer at the same booth. He and Mr Cooper had rolls of burgesses. As a voter came in, Mr Cooper handed him the local option paper, and the voter retired into a eoreened-off compartment with his licensing paper, and deposited the paper in the local option box. Tlxe voter then came to Ids own table and got his Parliamentary voting paper. That system pr* vailed during the day.

To Mr Russell: There waa only a ehort interval during the time a voter passed from the local optioa table to the Parliamentary table.

To the. Magistrate: One hundred and forty-seven electors voted during the day. There was no confusion or inconvenience by reason of the system adopted. Norman Watson Orr gave evidence teat he voted at the MayJield booth in the manner described by the last witness. Hβ was the only voter at tin* time. Matthew James Kerr, deputy-returning officer in charge i>f the Mount Somera booth, said that when a voter entered he got his electoral pajier and voted, and then got his local option paper and voted. One hundred and eighty-nine votea were recorded at the Mount Somers booth, wid there was no confusion or trouble at the booth.

xiemy JJeardin said that at the Lowcliffe booth both voting papers were given together.

Annie Jjobertson stated that she voted at Lowcliffe early in the morning on the licensing question, but she did not vote ior a candidate. She went home after recording her local option vote, and during tee afternoon she returned to the booth and voted for the Parliamentary candidate. To Mr Russell—When she went in the morning she got the two voting papers, but only used. one, and took the other home with her.

To Mr Stringer: When she went imu the booth on the first occasion she only voted for the local option poll, but she did not know whether ehe had ooe or two papers given to her.

Alfred Bray stated that he voted at tli« Seafield booth. He got the electoral paper first, and the local option paper afterwards. Tnis concluded the evidence in support of me petition.

Mr Harjfer said he did not propose to call evidence. Dealing with the alleged overcrowding of the booths, he said that the 1902 Electoral Act provided that only six voters at a time were to be allowed in a booth. Under section 167 of the Electoral Act an election was not to be invalid by reason of any irregularities precedent to the actual polling. Under the Alcoholi'j Liquois Sale Control Act, 1895, however, there was no such direction imposed upon a returning otlieer as regarded the number of voters to be allowed in a booth at one time. Under the Regulation of Local Elections Act a Magistrate had the power of saying whether an irregularity was one which tended to defeat the fairness of the eledion, and the evidence m the present case showed that there was no overcrowding. With regard to the simultaneous giving out of papers that came under the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act, section 6, sub-section 7. That section wae merely directory and not mandatory, and as long as a voter received his papers and exercised his votes with a small lapse of time between, it could not bo eaid that the Act had been infringed, and then there was the question whether the irregularity was one which tended to defeat the fairness of the election. lie submitted that both of the grounds should fail.

Mr Russell said that under the Electoral Act the Court would not set aside an election unless it woe shown that ths irregularities had tended to defeat the fairness of the election, and not for one moment could it be contended in an Election Court that the same facte would have been sufficient to have upset rtie election. If those matters would have been of no avail before an Election Court, then it seemed to him that the same principles should be applied to the present facts under the Regulation, of Local Elections Act. Nothing had happened which had tended to defeat the fairness of the election. At the Hampstead booth there were certainly more people in at one time than there should have been, but the booth wae a

suburban one, and at intervale drags were run down there carrying 20 to 30 electors, aD wanting to vote: It would have been a difficult matter to hare kept them out of the booth. It was quite clear that one witness, notwithstanding 44ie crush, recorded hie vote in a quarter of an hour, and that showed that the fairneas of the election was not affected in'any way. It ought be ea-id that those people had to wait their turn, but they would have hod to wait their urn whether they were inside the booth or outaide. The trvstem by which the voting papers were given out seemed to him to b* a complete one- The Ac.t did not mean simultaneous in point of time, but at the one operation, and if an elector cot hw papers and voted at the same time, the Act wae properly complied with. . Mra BobirtBone could not have affected

vote that the recorded later in the day.: He submitted fhat the petitioners had not established any case, and had not proved ft tHbe of what they should have proved in order to ask a magistrate to declare thepoH void. He would, therefore, ask his Worship to find that the allegations ha"d not been proved, and that the petition should be dismissed. .

Mr Stringer, in reply, said that the overcrowding question came within sob-section 6 of section 50 of tbe Regulation of Local Elections Act, and the question was whether tuch an irregularity tended to defeat the fairness of the election. The question was one entirely for the Magistrate. It did not appear to him in "that ipartieular instance that the overcrowding'had had any great effect upon the election itself. - One"person seemed to hare gone away because of the overcrowding, and it might be that others did, but the object of Che Legislature was to avoid, not so much people from being prevented from recording their votes, as to prevent peop'e being interfered with in the exercise of their votee when in the booth. The object was to preserve the secrecy of the ballot, and if only rix were in the booth nt a time, it would be difficu 1 t for anyone to interfere effectively with them. The point ac to the non-simultaneous deuvery of the voting papere, he submitted, stood on quite a different. footing. It did notr" necessarily come under tubsection 6, because it might, and he submitted it did. Some un<kr Sub-eec-tion 5, on the ground tfcat the voting papers were obtained otherwise than provided for by the Act. He admitted that when there-was a question as to whether or not the election of a Parliamentary candidate was valid, mere irregularities would ndt affect it unless they were shown to have interfered with the fairness of the election. Under the licensing poll, however, quite a different set of consideration* came irAo play, for the effect of the poll was to affect very seriously people's status and property. He submitted that the Aot Which enabled the pubJric to divest a man of certain property must comply strictly with the statutory provisions which had been laid down, and any variation would be auffioiewt to invalidate the poll. It was impassible to know whether other people •had dtone what Mre Robertson had done, bub H lie could prove that such a sta,te of thing's might happen, and did happen in one instance, his Worship was entitled to draw the conclusion that, it did happen in ottier oases. He submitted that the Act had been violated in a substantia! matter, and it was impossible to know what effeot it had. He submitted that under Sub-eeotion 5 the Magistrate had no discretion, .and the discretion only applied to cases which could be brought under Sub- i section 6 entirely, such as the question of I overcrowding. Mr Wilding, Tvtoo followed, dealt with the Magistrate's jurisdiction, pointing out <hat the Magistrate derived liie jurisdiction from the requisition of the fifty electors, and this requiaJtion miglit be made verbally or in writing. Mr Harper said that the voting pa-pew, mentioned in Sub-eection 5, were papers which might be brought,in from outside, and apart eltogetihar from those supplied to the officials. The Magistrate intimated that he would reserve hie decision. The (Magistrate delivered hie judgment later in the afternoon ac follow*:—"The electors of Aehbunbon nave decided by a substantia! majority that no licensee should be granted in ttoe dSrftriot, and I am asked to declare the poll void on two point*— firstly, that overcrowddng wa» allowed »t some df the booths, and secondly, tlet the voting was not simuMeneoue as required toy the Act. These objections would both issue under Sub-eeotdion 6 of Sedtion 50 ,of the Aot of 1876, as irregularitdei in the election -which tended to defeat it* fakness. Aβ to the overcrowding it is quite evidiertb the* though an irregularity wae (permitted, causing some inconvenience, it in no way afiW-ed the reaufc of the election, as no one wee thereby prevented from voting. As regards the eiraukeneoue voting, I think that the proper course wae rot followed at Muyfield and Mount Somers, that.each voter should have received two papere at tihe same trlrae, and latired witSi both to the compartmente. The method adopted was not strictly in thicordance with the letter of the statute, but I cannot, say that it would make any difference in the result suppose that the result would have been altered or had the proper method been used. It may have been a mistakes but did not tend to defeat the fairness of the election. What occurred exactly wrth regard to Mrs Robertson is not quite plain, but & was merely an irregularity which could'not have affected the result. It seems to me unreasonable to contend that any such irregularities, from which no election is ever likely to be free, can override the will of the. electons to unmistakably expressed." His Worship accordingly dismissed the petition. The only costa allowed were those to the returning officers.