ELECTION PETITIONS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2393, 24 February 1915, Page 6

ELECTION PETITIONS

TAUMARUNUI & HA WEE'S BAY

XTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE AT . TE KUITI ' BOOTHS WITHOUT SECRECY HOW SOME PEOPLE WERE ENROLLED

(By Telegraph.—Special Reuorter.J Te Kuitj, February 23. The hearing of the Taumamnui election petition, instituted by Mr. C. K. Wilson, the Reform candidate, against the return of Mr-'W. T. Jennings, the Wardist nominee, as member of Parliament for Taumarunui, was continued here to-day by Their Honours Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Chapman. Mr. Wilson is represented by Mr. A. H. Johnstone-and Mr. J.' Sharpe, and Mr. Jennings by Mr. G. P. Findlay. Jas. Hislop, chief 'electoral officer, gave evidence to the effect that certain persons who were on the roll and voted were aliens, not naturalised, and Gilbert Graham Hodgkins, deputy-chief electoral officer, was called to prove that some persons who were recorded as transferred toithe Taumarunui roll from other districts had not been found on the rolls of those other districts. Oscar Dasler gave evidence that' ho knew Eric Smith and Sidney Ormsby, 'two farmers, whose names appeared on the electoral' roll, and that both of i them lived outside the _ Taumarunui ] boundary, and in the Waikato electorate. They had not been entitled to vote in Taumarunui since 1908'. Some Strange Irregularities. Ellen Louisa M'Cracken, of Mananui, whose name the registrar had sworn: had been removed from the roll, deposed that she; had voted at the recent elec-' tion, although she had not made a declaration. Mr. Justics .Cooper: Did you vote at the 1911 election? Witness: Yes. • ■ Mr. Justice Cooper: Then, you were quite entitled to vote in 1914. Mr. Johnstone: No. Her name had been removed from the roll. , Mr. Justice Cooper: Well, then, wrongly removed. Mr. Johnstone: But the 1914 Act makes it necessary for people struck off to make a certain declaration before they can vote. Mr. Johnstone called Michael Lydon in respect -of whom counsel for Mr. Jennings admitted that Lydon, his wife, and their daughter, Margaret Mary Lydon, had not been the necessary twelve months in New Zealand before ' claiming enfranchisement. The witness called did not appear, but Mr. Findlay admitted,', also, that, the daughter was an infant, and that tho family had voted. ... , ; Rose Isabel Barlow, an infant of twenty years, stated that sh© had been put on the roll. . Mr. Findlay: Did you vote?

Witness: No. . • . Mr. Johnstone was applying further questions, when Mr. Findlay remarked that Mr. Johnstone should take the answer of his own witness. Mr. Johnstone, said that there were so many more ballot papers found, than there were voters checked on the roll that the point was important. .William' Jull, senior, a farmer near Te Kuiti, was placed in. the witnessbbx, and handed the form on which, he claimed enrolment. Mr. Justice Cooper: Is that your signature?

Mr. Finlay: Did you see him go? Witness: No; but I know a lot whioh I have never seen.

Mr. Finlay: Still you have a good deal to learn yet, I suppose?

Witness: Truo. and that cuts both ways. Mr. Finlay: Did you not talk everything over on Sunday night last in Kelvin House with Mr- Johnstone, counsel for the petitioner? _ Witness: I was not in Kelvin House on Sunday. I have only been there onca six months ago.

Mr. Finlay: Did you discuss it on Sunday in any other boardinghouse?

Witness: I saw Mr. Johnstone in the C-cmmeTcial Hotel and he served a document on me.

Mr. Finlay: Did not you discusß with Mr. Johnstone how far you wero prepared to go and eo on. Mr. Johnstone interjected that such suggestions reflected on him as well'as on Mr. Schramm: He assured the Court that, no such discussion had ever occurred.

Witness: Yes. • -\ . , Mr. Justice Cooper: Did you Bign that in the presence of J. B. Young? Witness: No. , His Honour: Was J. B. Youngs name on the form when you got it. He is- there as the attesting witness to your signature." Witness: It was not there. _ His Honour ': Were all these other particulars written in on the form when you got it?• Witness: Yes. .... . •• Agnes Jull, wife of the former witncssi gave evidence to similar effect, and added that her husband signed her name for her. Though - Mr. Young s name . was now on _ the form, he did not witness the signature. William Jull, inn., said that he got from Mr. Young five forms which wero filled in and then taken back to Air. Young who signed as a witness to au of them without having' seen the signatures made., !

Three Hundred Surplus Ballot Papers. Gilbert Graham Hodgkins, DeputyChief Electoral Officer, was recalled. Hesaid that it appeared from the marked copy of the roll that 7252 electors were ; checked- off as having voted. In addition -there were the following neures: Absent voters, 36; Expeditionary Force, 252; under .declaration, 62. Total 7G02 However, the number of ballot papers totalled 7917 or 315 in excess of the checked total. -■ Mr. Justice Chapman: Would not that be a large number of double votes? The witness said it would, and added that it was -oossible for some' people to have voted and not to have had their names checked off # on the Toll. Such errors were always liable to occur. Frederick William Schramm, Registrar of Electors and' Returning Officer for Taumarunui, recalled, stated that lv> was served with the petition m Wel-liiie-ton on January 15, but as he received it after office hours he -filed it next dav, January 16. On January 16 ho* received from the hank a memorandum that security had been deposited. The. witness produced an enrolment claim for the enrolment of Sidney Tames Griffiths on which there was no /signature. Still the space for the witnoss's signature had been used for the fixing of thi* name, of some alleged witr noss. Mr. Schramm said that this was a sample of many instances, i 'Mr. Johnstone: Have yon over been in Mr. J; B; Tonne's office ? i Witness: 'Yes; frenuently. Mr. Johnstone: Did you ever notico anything there which attracted yonr atYes, I saw on the shelves numbers of enrolment forms already piled in and witnessed and post-dated, except that the applicants' signatures were not there. 'Among these was the claim of Mr. Aldridge, the Liberal organiser.; 1 ■ ( .

Mr. Jennings and His Supporter' Young.

Mr. Johnstone asked -witness regarding a conversation he had with Mr. Jennings outside tho Hotel Grand in To TCuiti. Witness related the conversation this way : — "I said 1o Mr. Jennings: 'Why don't tou set rid of Young,', and Mr. Jennings said: '.Young is a d-—nuisance. TJv "working for me he is doing me a' lo« of harm. I am trying to get rid of him now, but I can't push liim off.' " Mr. Fin lay: Do you not know that Young was the representative of the Licensed Victuallers? AYitness: Yes, and at the same time f acting for Mr. Jennings. Mr. Finlay: How do yon know that? ■ I Witness: Because ho told me so and Mr. Aldridge told me that he used Yottna's o(Ticv and because it is comi mon knowledge that Young went to ■ Ti Oh lira district delivering Kpoecboß 1 in favour of Mr. Jswuuss. ~

posed that the booth was so crowded during the voting that he appealed to the mau in charge of the other poll to deal with the matter. However, the crowding continued. Some people handed their votes to others to drop in the boxes. Frederick 0. R. Phillips, solicitor, of Otorohanga, also testified to the overcrowding in the booth in that town. Mr. Finlay: Do you think it affected the result of the election? Witness: It may have influenced some of the rail-sittcrs. James Walls, a farmer, near To Kuiti, said that lie twice saw Mr. _ Jennings in the main booth at Te Kuiti on the day of the election. On that day J. B. Young was active for Mr. Jennings, and was very busy marshalling the Opposition motor-cars. After 5 p.m. tho Court rose till 10 a.m. to-morrow. The petitioner's witnesses, it is expected, will be exhausted in the mornnig, and tho respondent's case will bo opened. HAWKE'S BAY PETITION

The witness declared that he was not a political partisan, and was prepared to speak the truth whether it was infavour of Mr. Wilson or Mr. Jennings. Witness, to Mr. Finlay: No, you think I am a partisan? Mr." Finlay: Frankly, I don't mirid telling you I'think you are. Witness stated, also that during tlie scrutiny Mr. Jennings on several occasions entered the room in which the work was being done.' Effort to Kill the Petition Early. At this stage the Court temporarily' discontinued the taking of evidence to hear argument on Mr. Finlay's point as to whether the petition had been lodged late. \ Mr. Finlay contended that the petition should- have been lodged within twenty-eight days of the return of the writ, and not within twenty-eight days of the public declaration of the poll. He quoted the Wairarapa petition's case as supporting his contention. Mi - . Johnstone said that the electoral law had been altered since that petition was heard. Then it was not necessary for the Returning Officer to declare the poll. Now it was obligatory. Mr. Justice Cooper: The Act says now that it is the duty of the Returning Officer to declare the poll, and that any petition must be lodged within twenty-eight days' after the declaration of the poll. Mr. Johnstone: The question could never have arisen but for the Wairarapa . petition, and the law has been specially amended since then. _ Now, he added, there was . a special form drawn up in the Act after which stylo the declaration had to be made.

Mr. Justice Cooper remarked that he did not think' that the Court was bound by the Wairarapa case if there was a substantial difference in the wording of the Statutes then and now. Mr. Finlay: I submit that there is no material difference in the Statutes. Mr. Justice Cooper said that the Wairarapa case was' heard by the Supreme Court, not the Election Court. The Judges were Chief Justice Prendergast and Mr. Justice Connolly. They gave their decision, and when the 1 Election Court sat the Judges ruled that there was nothing for them to hear, as, the petition against the return of Mr. Buchanan (now Sir Walter Buchanan') had been held by the Supreme Court to be late. Mr. Finlay argued his point at some length, after which Mr. Justice Cooper said: "We will reserve judgment in this matter. The case is too important to give a decision on hastily."

For the Laughter of Those at tha Bach. A full-blooded Maori was called. Mr. Sharpies: "Are you on the roll?" Witness: Yes. Mr. Sharpies: How did von get on? ■ Witness: Mr. Young asked us to come in to his office and be put on. Mr. Sharpies: Did you vote? Witness :•■ Yes. ■ . Francis Peacock Corkill, accountant and notary, New Plymouth, said that he' had known Mr. Jennings for twenty years, and knew that Mr. Jennings and his' family had lived in Courtenay Street, New Plymouth, since . 1900. After the recent election Mr. Jennings returned to New Plymouth. Mr. Finlay: Do you know that Mr. Jennings was travelling in this end of the electorate for the Auckland "Star"? Witness: I heard so, and electioneering as well". ■ . • _ Sir. Finlay: Be fair.

Witness: You asked me to tell yon what I had heard. Mr. Finlay: Did yon hear that he was also travelling for some other newspaper in the Waitara end of the electorate? . , Witness: No. Mr. Finlay: Then yon don't really .pretend to know what Jennings has been doing for a'livelihood latterly? Witness: No, not in the last three years. ■ Mr. Finlay: Oh, a nasty insinuation that he has been living on his stipend before that. (Laughter from the back.) Witness: I did not suggest so; Mr. Finlay. That is certainly what you seem to think. Witness: For that matter I do think so. (Renewed • laughter.) ' Mr. Justice Cooper (cnrtly to Mr. Finlay): There is no jury for this, you know. You can only do it for the laughter of those at the back. • Mr. Finlay dropped the 6ubject. The witness: 1 had no intention of insulting Mr. Jennings, Your Honour. The Motor-car Marshal. Eustace James Brown gave evidence that at Mahirakau the voting was done in a schoolroom 18ft. by 14ft., and , the papers were marked at school desks where a curious person might have observed in which direction the elector voted.

1 Thomas M'Kean, a scrutineer at the Mahirakau booth, stated that the voters crowded into the room at times throughout the. day, and that on several occasions he had seen ' two people voting together at the one desk. There was a complaint that tbere were no screens in the booth. He did not reckon that these laxities had materially affected tho polling. Robert Wells, who conducted the poll at Brixton, said .that _ usually about forty people voted at his booth, but at the last poll an additional forty drove out in motors from Waitara. His booth was rushed, and one Crawford offered to take the roll numbers in order to assist him. "I was glad of assistance to deal with the rush," added tho witness. "That is my irregularity, and I am sorry for it." The witness, who is grey and aged, hesitated before leaving the bnx, and asked nervously, "Is it any reflection on me, Your Honour?" Mr.' Justice Chapman: "Oh, no. You did your best, and ;you only did this to meet the rush."

Robert. S. M'Donald, who had charge of the licensuw; poll at .Otorohaasn, do-

THE SECOND DAY

ALLEGATIONS OF DUAL VOTING

AND PERSONATION

puty-Returning Officer at Kokako, said that the official roll used by him snowed that a person had voted there in respect of qualification 9600, James Reid. He had no recollection of the individual at all. Twenty-seven vote 6 were recorded in his booth on election day.

George Thompson, cabinetmaker, of Hastings, eaid he had voted on election day in No. 2 booth in Hasttngs, and nowhere else.

Mindon Fonwick, Deputy-Returning Officer at Mangateretere, about three or four miles from Hastings, said that his roll , showed that a person had voted there in the qualification of 7088, George Thompson. There were-335 votes recorded in tho booth. To Sir Jolan Findlay: Apparently a vote had also been recorded in respect of 7089, George Thompson. He did not remember liaving struck out both names. If ho had struck out one of the names in error and then struck out the right one he would have put "Stet" against the name so struck out wrongly. Argument of Counsel. Mr. Skerrett pointed out to their Honours the reasons why petitioner urged that these six votes already referred to should be disallowed. In the case of Clure, he admitted having received a ballot-paper which he did not mark at one booth, and admitted also having voted later, in the day in another booth. This vote clearly must be disallowed. No voter could receive two ballot-papers ujiless by inadvertence, or. otherwise he spoiled a paper, in which circumstances a voter might receive another paper on handing over the spoiled paper to the Returning Officer. Provision was also made for the cancellation of the spoiled paper by the Returning Officer. Botli of Clure's bal-lot-papers mu3t ,be rejected. One of Olure's papers : was not marked, if Clure's recollection could be trusted, so

(By Telegraph.—Spccial Reporter^ Napier, ■February 23. The hearing of the election petition by Hugh M'Lean .Campbell against the return of Robert M'Nab for tlio Hawke's Bay seat was resumed before their Honours the Chief Justios and Mr. Jus-' tice Edwards to-day. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., wSH Mr. H. B. Lusk and Mr. W.'G. Wood, appeared for petitioner, and Sir John Findlay, with Mr. P. Levi, for the respondent. • Elimination of Doubtful Cases. Mr. Skorrett informed the' Court tliat as a result of the conference between counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent, they had eliminated all cases of apparent double voting in which there seemed to be a reasonable possibility of explanation because of the similarity of names or of the_ similarity of positions on the polling list or the certified rolls' used by the Returning Officer. The names now left were: Clure,' a case of obtaining two-ballot papers; Robert M'Lauchlan, George " Thomson, Henry Hodgers (as to which case some evidence had been given), Margaret Mickle, James Reid, and Edward Harvey Noell. About two of these cases, that of Thomson and Mickle, it might be possible that tie Court would not bo troubled- •with evidence, because counsel for the parties had engaged to make further inquiries.concerning them. At Mr. Skerrett's request, forty-one witnesses were discharged from further attendance. Evidencs as-to Instances. Edward Harvey Noell, of Te Konini, said he was on the roll in tbe name of Edward Harry Noell. He had a son, also of the name Edward Harvey Noell, who was a resident of Hastings, and . who was en the roll for four elections previously. He had voted under the name of Edward Harry Noell. Sir John Findlay objected that this was not evidence that witness was the person on the roll in the name of Edward Harry Noell. Sir Robert Stout: "Was this man's vote disallowed?" Mr. Lusk: No, Your Honour. His vote was allowed. His Honour: Then you ask to hare it disallowed? Mr. Lusk: No; but another man voted in the name of Edward Harvey Noell by declaration, so that two persons voted on the qualification possessed by i the witness, • . Witness, continuing, said that bis son had been away from witness's home for . about 12 years, following his trade. He , voted at the 1911 election.. , To Sir John Findlay—His son <jnce lived at Puketitiri. He did not know ; that liis son Edward Harry' Noell was . on the ,<l9ll roll in the name of Harry ! Noell. In any case, hie son's name was not Harry Noell. T. M. Lawlor, Registrar of Electors for Hawke's Bay, produced the official roll used at the 1911 election. Thero were two names 'on that roll, "Noell, Edward Harry,' ' Puketapu, farmer," and "Noell, Harry, Puketitiri, carpenter." Both voted at the 1911 election. He produced also the 1911' roll. On this roll there was the name "Noell, Edward Harry., ' Puketapu, farmer." There 'was no male person with the name of Noell on the 1914 roll. He produced the declarations made by persons who were allowed to vote, but who were not enrolled. 'Among the declarations was one made by one Edward Harvey Noell, of Hastings. ' Mr. Skerrett,. having seen the declaration, said that he admitted that the vote could not be struck off for double voting or personation. He wanted the evidence, however, for a later part of the case, when he proposed to argue that the declarations were improper. Other Cases. Charles Josiah Tipping, of Hastings, said that he was Deputy-Returning Officer at No. 2 Booth in Hastings. His record showed ' that Robert M'Lauchlan, number 4858, received a voting paper and voted at No. 2 Booth. The counterfoil would be in witness's handwriting. To Sir John Findlay—There were 1097 votes cast at the booth during the nine hours the booth was open. Ho and his two poll clerks _ were kept fairly busy. In every election mistakes were made in the ruling out of wrong names.

that the vote would make no difference, but clearly the other paper should be disallowed. With regard to M'Lauchlan's case, it was submitted that both votes should be disallowed. The marking of tile Toll was, be submitted, statutory evidence of an elector having voted, and lie quoted the sections of the Act for tbe direction of the Returning Officer or the Court pn this point. There was a difficulty about M'Lauchlan's case 'because the man could not be called. Possibly the' Court might be.in doubt about wliether one vote or two votes should be disallowed. The case6_ of Thompson, Mickle, and Reid were without this difficulty. There was clear evidence' without the suggestion of an explanation that these individual voters were personated. Hodgers's case was practically the same, but there was the additional circumstance giving rise to the possibility of innocent personation that the registered voter Hodgers had a son at Wairoa.

To Mr. Skerrett —He had sufficient time on polling day to do his work efficiently and carefully. William Frank Evans, Deputy-Re-turning Officer for No. 8 Booth, at Hav;elock North, said that his record showed that Robert M'Lauchlan, 4858, had voted at No. 8 Booth. '

Mr. Skerrett informed their Honours that M'Lauchlan had been subpoonaed, but had not been sorved. He bad loft the district. They wer# .not, therefore, able to call him. Mr. Skerrett went on to complete the Hodgers case. Harry Lloyd Ratcliffe, Deputy-R»-turning Officer at the Public Library, Wairo, produced the roll used by him at tho election. From-this roll it ap-. peared that Henry Hodgers, 3316, voted at that booth.

To ■ Sir John Findlay—He had no memory of anyone coming into tho 'booth and voting iij the name of Hodgers. Every voter would be asked his name by the poll clerk, who also turned up the name on the. roll. A check was kept Ify the scrutineers, and when possible he (witness) saw that 'the numbers were correct. Margaret Mickle said she resided m Ellison Road, Hastings, her • husband's name being Ernest Mickle. She was on tho roll ill the number of 9305. She vcted at Tomoana and at no other booth. Wilfred Theodore Caplin, DeputyReturning Officer at Hahora North, said that tho official copy of the roll showed that a person had voted at-Mahora North in-the name and qualification of 9305, Margaet Mickle. He had no personal recollection of thfj person Marcaret Mickle coming in to vote. Mahora North was a mile and a .half from Tomoana. James Reid, whose roil number was 0600, gave evidence. He said bo had voted at No. 35 booth at Watanui, and o.t no other booth. , Arthur Homy. Jlibbard Unwk, De-

under a declaration that she had voted in 1911, whereas in fact she was not on the 1911 roll. One, John Stevenson, describing himself as a joiner, voted under the declaration, but no John Stevenson was on the 1911 roll. There was a John Stephenson, spelt "ph,"described as a fanner. Counsel for the respondent announced that they would contend that the entry, was intended to refer to the same person. The Registrar was asked to produce also a declaration form on which two persona had signed the same declaration. • Mr. Skerrett 6aid he would object to tho form of this declaration. Sir Robert Stout asked Mr. Skerrett . to classify and tabulate the lists of declarations and the grounds on which v objection was taken in each class. Tliia' Mr. Skerrett promised to do. Expeditionary Force Votes. His Honour: I understand that all the votes given by the ExpeditionaryForce are objected to. Mr. Skerrett: Yes, Your Honour. The Thompson Case Again. Counsel also informed their Honours that at the Maungateretere booth' bal-' lot papers were issued in respect of the qualifications of both George Thompson 7088 and George, Thompson 7089. This seemed to show that no error in crossing out names had been made by the. Deputy-Returning Officer, and that the apparent dual voting was therefore still unexplained. , ' Form of Declaration. The form of declaration, the text of which was not read to the Court by/ counsel, was this wise: "I am the person whose name appears on the certified copy of the Hawke's Bay Electoral Roll as ( ), and which name is ruled out thereon,"—(or)—"l was enrolled as . an elector of the Hawke's Bay Electoral ..District, and duly voted at the last election for the said district, and my name does not appear on the certified copy of the roll for the present elec-. tion." Mr. Skerrett's contention was that | no person could truthfully allege both I of these statements, which were mutually exclusive in, meaning. He claimed that they were intended to be alternative, aud tliat no declaration'can be. valid unless one alternative was struck out. - The Court rose at 4.40 p.m. until 10 a.m. to-morrow (Wednesday).

Sir John Findlay argued in respect of Clure's case that the vote cast by Clure in the evening was cast validly. It remained for his learned friend to show that the receipt of a ballot-paper by Clure at another booth early in the day must be accepted as a vote within the meaning of the law; when a man in a state of intoxication received a bal-lot-paper, did not mark it, took it out with him into the street, and it was . there taken out of his pocket and given to the Returning Officer. He would contend that these proceedings did not amount to the recording of a vote, and did not invalidate the vote cast later in the day. He did not apprehend that the Court would disallow both of the votes polled iunder M'Lauchlan's qualification because the man happenedto be undiscoverable. Presumably one vote was properly, recorded, and even if a number of cases of- apparent dual voting had been investigated by counsel for both side's, and counsel for petitioner had aocepted explanations offered by him it was conceded and admitted that , in these cases errors were committed. Mr. Sterrett, in reply, addressed himself'first to Clure's case. He pointed out that the Act directed the Returning Officer, after he had given an elector i a ballot-paper, to strike tho man's name off the roll , as evidence that he had voted. Directly a Returning Officer handed a paper to an elector that elector was deemed by the law to have voted; and further the' law enjoined the elector most strictly to retire to one of the enclosures provided for the paper; to mark the paper, to fold the' paper, and to put it in the box. The consequences of ;the argument that a man who has received a ballot-paper must not be deemed to have voted would' lead to a great many abuses. If this were aocepted as law a man might go to several polling booths, taking away witli him several papers, and put them all into one box at the booth where he completed the act . of' voting. Of course, a man who acted as dure did on the morning _of polling day did not Tecord an effective vote. But neither did a man; who made his ballot-paper informal, and it would never be seriously contended that'a man could go Into one booth _ and make his bal-lot-paper void, and then later go into another booth, land record another vote. The other cases were all clear, cases of personation. Counsel for the respondent had said that the personators must be called before the evidence of the marked : rolls, could be accepted as prima facie evidence of personation, but in support of this contention learned counsel had not quoted one authority. Ho repeated his argument that the Legislature allowed the . evidence of the marked rolls to be accepted.

Too Many Votes. Sir Robert Stout: Here is a point I think you had better consider at your leisure. At the. Maungateretere booth there were 335 ballot papers, but on. the roll used by the Returning Officer at Maungateretere there arc marked off only 315 names, so that there were 20 more votes than there were names, marked off. There were ■ six declaration votes, which.could be marked off, because the names were not on the roll, making the total number of votes recorded 321. There'were 54 votes in the Maungateretere ballot-bos , more than there should have been, according to the names, marked off the roll. Can we, in the face of that, assume that tho checking off is .correct? Mr. Skerrett: I will inquire into this Blatter. Sir Robert Stout: I think you had better inquire into it. Were the Declarations Valid? Mr. Skerrett opened his case attacking the votos recorded under declaration. First of all he would make a general objection to the votes on account of the ambiguity and indefiniteness of the phraseology in the form of declaration used. He' would make other objection' that some of the declarations were not signed, that on some forms'more than one person purported to make a declaration, and that some declarations were made by people not entitled to vote;,. The general principle of our law was that only persons on the roll were entitled to vote. Owing to the possibility of the names of persons entitled to be e. rolled being left off the rolls, the Legislature had allowed persons who could .-jivo voted at the previous election to vote even if their names w°.?e n>;t oil the roll on making a certain declaration In all of these cases the declarations were wholly ambiguous. They did not suoject any of the declarants to any punishment becauso the declaration did not contain any positive statement. Evidence was .given by the Returning Officer and Deputy-Returning Officers as to tho practice followed in receiving declarations. The forms weio filled in by the tail clerk from particulars supplied by tie declaruts and tho Deputy-Returning Officor witnessed the signature. Specific Declarations. The Registrar of Electors was examined as to the- right of certain declarant*) to . vote. He stated one Margaret Smith .voted