OHINEMURI LOCAL OPTION POLL.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 423, 4 February 1909, Page 3

OHINEMURI LOCAL OPTION POLL.

■: ', ,';;ADDRESS;BY MRi;ADAMS. /.. . ;.(BI TBlKOllirU—rB«SS ■'■ 4S9OCUTION.) , ' : ; Waihl; r February '3. In connection .with the -petition to upset the Ohinemuri. licensing poll, Mr. Adams,'for the ■ respondents, addressed the Court; He, criticised the petition, and.said thatits move at first was evidently to allege, charges of dishonesty, and theft. Those-veiled charges, he ; said;' had been dropped, and - hopelessly failed as'regards the advancement: of any proof in support. He also referred to suSt picion as .levelled against Slevivv ; regarding, the keys and the. failure , of any direct evidence.; Counsel next pointed out that under the Act of 1904 no poll, had yet been ;set aside. The onus, be continued, of proving an affirmative case was upon the petitioners, who had to' show that the result of the poll was affected by the irregularities.. Referring to the.Akaroa election petition, he. said that 10. out of 11 polling, places 'had-been closed before;the.proper; time, thus depriving certain electors from recording their votes. That poll,: had.been, voided. Qu6ting' ; law reports in support,; Mr. Adams reminded'the Court that it should be 'first satisfied as a matter .of fact; and not of opinion; that-.the election had, not been conducted under the provisions of'. the existing law before. voiding : the ■ poll. ■He'also:quoted judgments;by Judges Williams and Denniston on the "matter of irregularities as likely to.affpctthe , result of-a poll,-, and'also on the question of evidence. Counsel referred the Court to "Bodgers on Elections,,, '(page 61), regarding the definition of "result" as applied to a poll, which was not to be ; ponfuEed with the matter of'majority. "Maxwellon Statutes" was also quoted as regarded the question of irregularities on the part of a returning officer, which should not be:'held'to affect ; the result of a poll;or .to alter the .'decision of the. -people. The .whole case.for the petitioners, he said, was hased drr the unfounded assumption that it was the diity : bf the returning ; officer to see , that vot,ersi voted /in secret.. Counsel affirmed-in. this connection j.tKat such duty was cast on the : voters'themselves. If returning officers were: ; to "dry "nurse" .voters,'Jihen the. ■whole, method of conducting an election, he cohterided; would have to be' recast. Coun-;B?l-then reviewed-the clauses of ,the petition ;at considerable length, and finally contended that the. petition resolved itself; into, allegations,;.as,.made/in clauses ,B,'and ;9, re the admittance of more than-sis-voters into the .boothiat.. one; time, .and on- the., question of secrecy'..- The' vital allegations,'he submitted, been in any way proved by petition-, ers:. He argued that; the case was made up of assumption,. insinuation, suggestion, ■ and .exaggeration, -and the evidence :was': unreliable. ■. ; ' Referring. to the question; of secrecy, counsel pointed.out.that the contention in the Taheta case that there was; no obligation ,6n ; the.part of thevTeturrimg-.pfficer-ito provide "inner compartments had teen upheld. Ihe question,'therefore, argued counsel, .of secrecy:wa>;not an irregularity^but an imprb-. pnety .on-the part-of .persons at the poll ■ Quoting.Constable Drispoll's evidence,- he maintained- that the voting compartments as provided were .sufficient'for .'the purposes .of secrecy, i'and'voters could vote with secrecv if they, liked,. He deprecated Driscoll's - :e'viden'co, and pointed out that he-had ample opportunity cluring ; his examination in.chief to _ make the same statements as he did on ;pemg;recalled.''■■'■ Not' one 'witness,' he'v'c'on--tended, had been; called to. show 1 that his or her,vote had r been seen.; No.evidence had been produced. to show' how aiiy—particulaf. person^had'voted, or.that:.*single licensing .paper had - ; been rseen.;;:' Counsel • quoted"' lengthy, list of witnesses ; coTCriiig the "period of alleged > difficult Rimes' to' vote, showing that each witness had recorded his .vote without delay or difficulty/ <Ih conclusion, counsel submitted that the case , , for petitioners had been hopelessly and absolutely scattered. Mr. .Adams-comnienced his'address, at 9 °,°^>'- concluding at the': adjournment this.afternoon.'..-. ■■",■'■■■[, -■' \ ■ ■■,"■>■"•"■'■■ ' " ■ '••• :'■. Mr:;'Skemtt'i on.bdlialf ■-.of petitioners,- adCourt to-morrow.' '.'. ■:■■'••',,'.■'..