THE HUTT HOTELS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 408, 18 January 1909, Page 6

THE HUTT HOTELS.

PETITIONERS' CASE CONCLUDED. i SECRECY OF THE BALLOT QUESTIONED. •The inquiry into the Hutt.local option poll was ■ resumed - on Saturday morning, • before Dr. A.'M'Arthur, S.M., : Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., and Mr- W. P. James, S.M. 4 ' The petitioners were represented by Mr. A. R. Atkinson and Mr. H. H. Ostler, and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., Mr. A. W. Blair, and Mr. AV. J. Cracroft Wilson appeared for the respondents'. Re-examined by Mr. Atkinson, the Rev. Thomas Arthur Williams stated that, at the recount, the bundle of No-License papers marked 99 were placed on the stage on account of , a mistake , in" the counting. l He only saw this by accident; Mr. Blair (scrutineer) did not call his.attention to it. "Could See How Twelve Persons Voted." John Ikmry Baxter, bank clerk, and NoLicense scrutineer at Taita, stated that a room at the public school was used for the booth, and witness"■ could see how , about twelve persons '..voted. The other officerscould have done ,the same. On several occasions there was""moro than one voter in the booth. Witness said nothing to the deputy about the absence of inner compartments. By-Mr. Skerrett: The voters must have' been. 20ft. or '25ft. from the officers. If the voters sat; down on the desk, they would face the officers. To avoid this, they would have to stand.;. The desks'sloped towards the voter.; ..'.■•'•. •By. Mr. Ostler: He could riot say. that he actually saw how a. voter struckout the lines.. Failure to Enrol. . In connection /with a charge that a canvasser illegally neglected to forward an application for enrolment to the returning officer, Sarah Ellen: Smith stated that.she was given a form, signed it, and handed it back to the canvasser. She entered the Oddfellows' Hall, Petone, to vote, but her name, could not be found on the roll. . By Mr. Skerrett: It was about April when she came to Petone, and it was about three weeks,before the.election that the canvasser came.. She could not say if .the canvasser witnessed the form. >. .:, ." £5 for Your Vote." /Edward Kibblewhite, - builder, of''" Petone, stated, that'on the day of the poll he-saw a brewer (Mr. Harley) near the booth. A man walked by, and the brewer called' him by name,.and .said: "I will'give yoU'.£s for your vote." The man did not stop, but, en-' tared the.booth. . ,«Mr Skerrett: I suppose there's no doubt about the side you're on? • Witness: I'm:not ashamed to own my colours, and I work for them. ' . Did the brewer speak quite loudly?— Yes. ...-•Do you think he spoke,seriously?— He was very interested in tho election. -.'■" ■.- ;., So-interested that he could not make '-' a' Jf^-.T? 6 sald **■ *do not know if he said it m "joke".' ' •'■.' i ' George Dabnett Ayson, carpenter, of Lower Hutt, said that on the afternoon of polling day he saw people entering' a room at the lown-Hall, and come out wiping .their mouths. He also saw a certain hotelkeeper' .near by. '• . -." ~ • •■.. . ..' ,>'.. Conveyance of Liquor. ■ was then called.in support of an ■allegation that liquor, was .conveyed to Muritai with a yiew of influencing voters.; .CharleyDick,.a carrier,.of Rona Bay, B aid that he did not take >■ parcel "to a house of •Mr; Sulhvan or Mr.. Russell shortly before the election. He .had no conversation with-a Mr. Coombes. .. . ■'•.'■:"'■' Charles. Russell -was called, but was not : present.- .-' .- ■'.:..' '• '; Henry Josiah'Oakley was called to prove service." He. mentioned .that the previous witness, was not the Dick that he had served and he stated later .that he served a David .'Djck. ' . .■' ..,- '•; .■„'■].;■,, ', ■ The Magisterial Recount.: ' •'■Henry Hubert Ostler, barrister "and solici-tor,-was called in' place of the Rev:, J. Daw-' son, who was absent. .He stated, that he was solicitor for the',No-License, .party at ; the) magisterial recount. ■In detailing mistakes which had been found, in the second 100- a vote .which should have 1 been counted 'for Continuance and -Reduction. was counted as Continuance only: At, the, sixteenth 100, two Reduction and No-License votes were counted as for Continuance. . At'the itwenty-first'loo there we're only) 78 'Continuance.voteß'and ,22; No-License arid Reduction votes. -This was in a- Continuance bundle. There were ! no.such mistakes in the No-License bundles/ In_,tho informal votes,' two were discovered, which were clearly No-License and Reduction votes. He could hardly conceive how an honest mistake.was made over the latter two ' votes.. , The -difference ;in the 'magistrate's count and Mr. Mothes'; recount was as follows: — ■■■'• .■■ .I-' '''■'~'■•

, v '••' '.„."'■"■' Magis-; ' - Mr. ; _'■■ trate's. Mothes'. : Continuance ... 2390 2417 Reduction' ...;•'.: „; 2851 '2827 ~ .No-License': ...,.'... .3619 3595 .Informal: ...',.,.■ | 82 ■ 80 • Valid -votea ,; .;•':.„ 6036' 6037 '.'' By Mr'. ■■Skerrett: He twenty-two votes and,two others made.up' the difference? .Witness:, Yes. With this.difference, thefigures' were fairly correct? —Yes. y■.''",.-..■ The other differences are due to the fact that Dr. M'Artkuf. took a different view as to 'informal votes? -^-Yes.". / . : . . . •- An objection to the admission of absentees' votes was made?: —Yes.., .;'-.' ..'.•'■"'■ There were also some papers initialled'by a deputy returning officer tor illiterates and disallowed? —Yes. ■'. J".-.- '•'.'■'■.:•• These were .seven Continuance, .two Reduction and No-License, and two No-License? —Yes.V . '.■. •. \ ,■ By Mr. Atkinson: ,-The-.absentee voting was: 48 valid, ll'Continuance,.37 No-License, 34 Reduction'. '...;.' ". . Primitive Voting Arrangements.' Thomas. .Waughj nurseryman, stated that he voted at the Epuni Public School, where' a blackboard and a map were used to form inner compartments. Anybody could have seen how an elector voted. *: . ' By Mr. Skerrett: He did not know that the No-License scrutineer was satisfied with the arrangement.;'. Witness did not consider it satisfactory. '■'..''.....'■ ■ This concluded;-the evidence for the petitioners; with the exception of that of a surveyor as to the boundaries on the Hutt Road in regard to. an allegation that a man voted who! was really in another district. ; .: '~ Mr. Atkinson formally applied that. Sanson's, vote be disallowed. ..■•■' Mr. Skerrett in Reply. .'.ln- opening, Mr.MSkerrett said -that some of the paragraphs did not require an answer. Paragraphs 1 to 7 were merely formal. The latter was incorrect, 1 as in order to enable No-License to bo'carried five votes would be required.to be struck off the Contlnuanco votes. ■ ;■ ■'■.. ' - ;': Dr. 'M'Arthur:' Mathematically, 4J votes are required.. As wp want! a : full man, it means 5. I'do'notmean a "full" man in one sense of the word. (Laughter.) ■:- Mr. Skerrett:'Nor a vulgar fraction of a man. '";■■'. Dealing with a charge'of wrongfully refusing to enrol- Mrs. Allendor, Mr. Skerrett said that little need bo said as the witness went away,'and there was no time for'the transfer. As to tho mistake concerning Mrs. Collett's not; being on the roll, whereas she was on in. her maiden name, he quoted the Legislature Act to show, that it was not an offence. To be that it must bo shown to have been dono knowingly and wilfully. As to tho lady !-who said', she signed a paper which was not forwarded, it could not. affect the result of tho poll. It was the. irregularity I of an individual, but Section 33 did not authorise the Court to go into tho preparation of the roll. If necessary, ho would call evidence on this matter. Clause 13 stated! that. tho Returning Officer, without any j authority, appointed a.man whom ho knew to be an active partisan of tho licenses, I and: to have, been hired by them as a. canvasser, and that; he, Webb, took charge of a' booth and illegally'entered it. This continued Mr. Skerrett; was perfectly ridiculous. There wasfno evidence as to'what ca-

parity Webb was -there in. Townsend was called, but he could say nothing. There was nothing for-him to answer. He would say that Webb was properly appointed to look after 'the absent voters, and he was in general supervision of the booth. Clause 15, which stated that A. Cowie was appointed without authority to take charge of the absent voters, was precisely similar.' The next clause dealt with a Returning; Officer leaving his booth without appointing a substitute in writing. He was at liberty to be absent and supervise any of the booths. ,Mr. James: It has never been the custom for the Returning Officer to take' charge of a particular booth. He could go to any booth. » Mr. Skerrett submitted that there was nothing to answer in tho clause stating that the. Returning Officer habitually spoke to voters and used words in effect that the licensing box had no chance whatever. .Travcrs swore that Mothes addressed Mrs. Burridge, who gave a very different account of it. He submitted that Mr. Mothes was not called upon for an 'answer. Regarding tho retaining possession of ballot papers, he contended that the conduct of the officers was prudent and proper. Ordinary common, sense, which seemed singularly lacking in some of the No-License supporters, was used in removing the boxes, and the same practice had' been followed in the past. . The boxes arrived intact,' and what could be complained of? Dr. M'Arthur said that it would be more dangerous to sot out at night on the roads with the boxes. Mr. JameS remarked that this.would have given moro Opportunity .to anyone desirous of interfering with the boxes. ; • Pontinuing, Mr. Skerrett said that.it could not be said that what was done affected the'voting. It could not be expected that, in scattered districts to. have the elaborate provisions that would be made at Petone or Wellington. If there had _ been a technical, transgression of the Act, it did not affect the issue, and.it should not upset the poll unless the Court considered that the result was affected. . v - The inquiry was adjourned until 9.45 this morning. . \\ r