Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

OHINEMURI LICENSING PETITION.

i ( <iNrl.ri)|.\i; PROCEEDINGS. \ [BV i'KLKOKAI'U I'KJI I'KESS ASSOCIATION.] WAIIII. February 'J. Re*]>ondents in connection with the peti- ■ lion in void the Ohineimiri Licensing Poll J concluded their evidence to-day. Some 80 ! witnesses had Iwen examined. The evidI eneu was principally in connection with ; that given !»y petitioners as to the crowded j condition of the poll and the violation of tin- secrecy of the ballot. Mr Adams said he did nol propose to I call any more evidence. j Mr Skcnett liotitknl thai ho intended I to call refultal evidence. 1 Mr Adams asked on what ground. Mr Skerrctt argued that he was entitled | to call ovidencc aifectin" the secrecy of I the ballot, and proposed" to recall Conj stable Driscoll in that respect. Counsel pointed out that no re-trial j could In' held in the present case in fairness and justice to the petitioners, the ! cvidei if (.'unstable- Driscoll should not hr admitte<l. He also pro|x>*«d to call one ! hi two witnesses to refute tin*- evidence in | connection with what occurred during the [Kill at special times during the day. Mr Adams objected to the application being granted, and submitted that his friend should have been prepared to produce bis evidence on all points in connection with the petition. Mr Kkerrett could not have been (alien bv surprise. Fie (counsel) had not introduced any new matter. Mr Skerretl replied, and pointed out that it, was impossible for him to have known to what times respondent's evidence was tii be directed regarding the conduct of the poll. Counsel submitted thai a very great injustice would be done to petitioners if the application was refused.

The Court decided to hear Constable DriseoH's evidence only. Constable Driscoll stated that he, as the result of the exposure and crowded condition of the polling booth ai the time, sawhow at least thirty voters recorded their votes, but there may have been a greater number.

The Court adjourned till to-morrow mowiing to hear the addresses of the respective counsels.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GEST19090203.2.30.3

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 February 1909, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
337

OHINEMURI LICENSING PETITION. Greymouth Evening Star, 3 February 1909, Page 4

OHINEMURI LICENSING PETITION. Greymouth Evening Star, 3 February 1909, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert