TUMARUNUI ELECTION PETITION.

King Country Chronicle, Volume IX, Issue 748, 24 February 1915, Page 5

TUMARUNUI ELECTION PETITION.

OPENING OF INQUIRY. MANY IRREGULARITIES ALLEGED. FURTHER SCRUTINY APPLIED FOR. The enquiry into the election proceedings of the Taumarunui election, upon the petition of Mr C. K. Wilson, one of the defeated candidates, was opened at Te Kuiti on Monday, before their Honors Mr Justice Cooper and Mr Justice Chapman. Mr J. A. Johnston, of New Plymouth, appeared for the petitioner, and with him waß associated Mr J. B. Sharpies. Mr G. P. Finlay, of Te Kuiti, appeared for Mr Jennings, the candidate declared duly elected, and with Mr Finlay was associated Mr Vernon. There was a large attendance of spectators, and great interest was manifested in the proceedings throughout. Mr Johnston opened proceedings on behalf of the petitioner,, reviewing the various charges and allegations contained in the petition. After relating the facts leading up'to the declaration of the poll, counsel said the Taumarunui electorate was a very large district, sparsely settled. Large areas were being taken up, and public works to a large extent were being carried on. There was a considerable nomadic population. These facts indicate the possibility of irregularities both at the poll and preliminary thereto, owing to the difficulty of the registrar exercising full supervision over the whole district. The law was altered on October 27th, and by reason of the alteration the residence qualification was reduced from three months to one month. The fact that there were 98 polling places in the electorate, and the registrar had tu 'carry on his usual duties as Clerk of the Court while acting as registrar, showed what difficulties had to be overcome. The basis of election was the claim for enrolment. No one could vote whose name was not on the roll; no one could be a candidate unless on the roll. The basis of the electoral system was therefore the claim, and it was highly important that no irregularity in claim should take place. One of the registrar's duties was to send a copy of the roll corrected up to the time of the issue of the writs. The law also provided that separate compartments should be provided at the polling booth. Counsel detailed the manner in which the ballot papers had to be dealt with by the deputy-returning officers, among others to initial the counter-foil of the paper and rule out the name of the voter. The counter - foil and marked roll are then sealed up. When the marked rolls are received by the returning officer a scrutiny takes place in the presence of scrutineers appointed by each candidate. Nobody else is allowed to be present. A clean copy of the roll is marked from the deputy-returning officers' rolls, and kept by the registrar. If there had been no irregularity or failure to mark the rolls, it was obvious the rolls and papers would tally. When the scrutiny took place at Te Kuiti it was found there were over 300 papers in excess of the marked names. There were 30 shown as having voted twice. There were 36 absent vote permits issued and 46 shown as having voted. It wss possible in such a large district for error to take place to a greater extent than usual, but in the present case there was a discrepancy of about 360 votes, which was considerably greater than Mr Jennings' majority. He contended, therefore, a scrutiny should be granted by the Couri. In the case of dual voting, counsel said the Court had power to open the papers. Only by. means of a scrutiny could the Court decide as to votes of a large number of persons said to be illegally placed and kept on the roll, and the Court had power to disallow these votes. The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the petition related to votes cast by persons who had voted on a declaration in consequence of their names having been wrongfully removed from the roll. In respect to paragraph 5, counsel said he was unable to substantiate the allegation and would abandon that claim as the persons had not voted at the previous election. As to paragraph 6, that was retained as persons were held to have voted who had no right to do so. As to paragraph 7, it was alleged that a large number of names were placed on the roll that should not have been bo placed. It was claimed 14 aliens not eligible were on the roll. It was the duty of the registrar to verify all claims by aliens by referring to the records of naturalised subjects. In certain cases the claim forms would show they should not have bden placed on the roll. In some the towns were not specified. In two the witness attesting Was said not to be on the Taumarunui roll. Some alleged to have been transferred from another district. A residence of one month was sufficient qualification for a transfer, but it would be shown these perßonß had not been on another roll. In the case of two others it was alleged they had not been twelve months in the Dominion. The names of Maoris as distinct from halfcastes, were on the roll, and no person possessing more than half Maori blood could be on *he European roll. Eight names of persons not in the district for a period of one month were said to appear on the roll. Evidence would be called to show these could not have arrived in the district in time to qualify. It would be claimed that all these names should be removed on a scrutiny. A question of law was raised in respect to whether Mr Jennings was entitled to be a candidate at the election. Mr Jennings lived in New Plymouth, and though he might have been in the Taumarunui electorate fcr over a month prior to the claim for enrolment, he did not change his home. It was therefore claimed he was not entitled to be enrolled.

Counsal contended if the petitioner sueeeded in establishing that a large number of names wore unlawfully on the roll he will also have succeaded in establishing that grave irregularities occurred prior to the election. At Mahirakau it was claimed no provision was made for maintaining the secrecy of the ballot. Over 180 votes were recorded in a manner very much like open voting. At Brixton, it was alleged a . number of voters from Waitara want out to record their votes. There was only one deputyreturning officer. An unofficial person took upon himself to carry out the duties of poll clerk. At Otorohanga the booth was often crowded with persons not engaged in voting. The minor irregularities may not have been sufficient to invalidate the election, but the cumulative effect was important. At Te Kuiti it was alleged Mr Jennings werat frequently into polling booths. In one case he de,manded a person should have a vote and threatened to telegraph to Wellington if that were not done. Mr Jennings was also present during the scrutiny, in breach of section 48 of the 1910 Act. An irregularity of a very serious kind was in respect to Mr Young, an agent of Mr Jennings, waa in the habit of attesting forms and sending them out for claimants to sign, so that the necessary formalities were not "omplied with. This was claimed to be important inasmuch as it was far reaching in effect and difficult, to detect. Mr Schramm, the registrar, would say that several forms attested and unsigned were sent in. Four witnesses, would say they signed such form 3. It was claimed votes by the E speditionary Force were recorded by people not entitled to vote in the electorate. Counsel said it might be contended by the defence that section 179 of the Act of 1908 governed the case that the election was conducted in accordance with the law despite irregularities, and that such irregularities did not affect the result of the election. He claimed members should be elected by parsons who were entitled to vote, ard such votes were cast freely and without restraint. It was claimed theae provisions had been infringed. It was no light matter to apply to have an election upset, and the petitioner was open to the gibe that he waa suffering from the sting of defeat. That, however, could not be affirmed in this instance. Counsel then proceeded to call evidence. Edward William Kane, second assistantclerk to the House of Representatives, gave formal evidence as to the disposal of the papers in connection with the poll.

James Hislop, chief electoral officer, gave evidence as to the boundaries of the electorate and produced the official map?. In reßpect to the Expeditionary vote, witness said the roll was compiled from the Defence i')ll and from the men's own statements. The Expeditionary poll was taken three days ,aftsr the Act passing tha House.

Gilbert Graham Hodgkins, deputy chief electoral officer at Wellington, said he relieved Mr Schramm at Te Kuiti on December 15th, and undertook the scrutiny of the rolls. In respect to voting, witness found a number of names (about thirty) marked off on two rolls. All these votes were allowed. In the Expeditionary vote only informal votes were disallowed. Mr Jennings was not present at the .scrutiny at any time when witness was there. Frederick William Schramm, of Te Kuiti, Registrar of Electors and Returning Officer for Taumarunui, stated, in reply to Mr Johnston, that his health broke down on December 14' h. After the poll was taken on December 10th the result waa declared in witness' name by advertisement in the King Country Chronicle. The candidates were William Thomas Jennings, Charles Kendall Wilßon, and Frederick William Shortland. A scrutiny held under section 48 of the 1910 Act was commenced oh December 14th. The scrutiny started at 9.30 a.m. Mr Jennings appointed a scrutineer in writing (Mr Walsh). He acted when the scrutinv started. Later on Mr Jennings arrived with Mr Buchanan. He saw witness in the office and wished to substitute Mr Buchanan for Mr Walsh. . Witness said it could not be done. Mr Jennings asked him to wire to Wellington about it. Witness did so. Meanwhile he was apparently dissatisfied with the decision and came to the room where the scrutiny was being held, anJ started to argue the question. Witness said as far as he was concerned Mr Buchanan would not act unless witness had authority from Wellington that the ruling was wrong. He left the room to look up the Legislature Act, and returned. One of the scrutineers, Mr Cochrane, objected to Mr Jennings being in the room. Witness told Mr Jennings he would have to leave. 'Witness produced the claims of enrolment of persons described as aliens. The marked roll was produced. Witness had not compared the names with the marked roll to ascertain if those persons had voted. Witness knew Mr J. B. Young, of Te Kuiti. Mr Young'fi office was used by the Liberal organiser prior to the election, till close on polling day. Mr Finlay objected to a question as to whether Mr Jennings had any relations with Mr Young. Continuing, witness stated Mr Young Was prosecuted in the Magistrates Court recently, the charges being for having received a claim for enrolment and failing to hand it to the Registrar; the other was for making a false statement on a claim for enrolment, in that he signed aB a witness to. a signature on a claim which was unsigned by the claimant. Both charges were dismissed. A question as to whether Mr Young on oath said anything concerning hiß relations with Mr Jennings was objected to by Mr Finlay. Mr Johnston put in a letter from Mr Young, together with a claim for enrolment, which he claimed would establish the fact that Young was agent for Mr Jennings.

Mr Justice Chapman: The letter "does not show agency. It indicates friendship. Witness 3aid the letter oame to him for the purpose of having Mr Young prosecuted. Witness believed there were other unsigned formfl similarly attested, but could not produce them at present. Witness had received some such foims, but could not say how many. The claims were dealt with by the • clerks in the office. Witness had recsived approximately six hundred claims witnessed by Mr Young since July last. Many notices sent out in respect of these claims 1 could not find the claimants.' Witness told Mr Young of thin. To Mr Justice Chapman: About 20 unsigned forms, attested by Young, passed through witness' hands. Some were rejected; others were sent out to be completed. Two claims were attested by Leslie Patty. -He was authorised by witness to attest signatures. Mo person named Crawford was authorised by witness to take any part in th 9 conduct of the poll at Brixton. Witness produced two claim forms, eigned by Wm Thos. Jennings. One, dated November 9th, shows Mr Jennings'address to be Taumarunui; the other, dated November 10th, shows the address to be Grand Hotel, Te Kuiti. Robert John William Gunn was stated by the marked roll to have voted twice. He also bad an absent voter's permit, and voted on that. Witness could not say whether the vote was recorded twice or three times. ' Mr Hislop, recalled, said he had examined the claims of the aliens. Of fourteen submitted he had traced from office records the names of four were to be found, and which, with the exception of one, show discrepancies. s There was no record of the others. In respect to a number of claims for transfer, witness had received reports from the various registrars concerned. Mr Finlay objected to hearsay evidence. The Court allowed the reports to be read. Of these enquired for there was no trace of fourteen. Mr Finlay pointed out that the enquiry only covered the 1911 roll and the claimants may have believed they were on the roll when they applied for transfer. Goodwin Edwin Augustus Hood, in charge of the unemployment branch of the Wellington Labour Department, said J. Mann applied for work on October 29th, 1914. He was sent to the Public Works at Okahukura on October 30tb. John Reid applied on October 30th, and was sent to the same place. Chas. Davis said he had been in New Zealand two days; Cornelius Cronin, October 24th, 1914; Louis Batt applied on October 27th and was sent on the 28th. Various other names were also given of men sent to the works in October. Witness said the information was furnished at the request of the Secretary of Labour. Rupert Worley, Public Works engineer, Okahukura, remembered several men being sent up in October. To Mr Finlay: Men employed by private contractors totalled 180 to 200. Witness didn't know these men officially. Men often juggled with names, and further than that, certain men whosts names were given he didn't know. To his knowledge there were not two men of the same name except Reid. John Mariner Harris, Maori clergyman, Otorohanga, sai 3 he knew three brothers named Poutawera. These were more Maori than half-caste. These names were on the Europsan roll. .

Gabriel Elliott, agent, Te Kuiti, said he had a fairly extensive, acquaintance with the Maoris of the district. Taiki Harapa and Henare Te Hau were known to witness. Harapa's father was a full Maori; his mother was also a Maori according to Native Land Court records. Both thlse mens names were on the roll. Arapa Taiki stated he was a Maori. His. name appeared on the roll in consequence of Young and Walsh coming to him at work, and, telling witness to sign the book, witness did so. Witness Was told it was for the member, Prior to that witness thought he was signing to go to the war. Witnesß voted at the pakeha election. Witness knew Pika Putahi. His father was a Maori and his mother either half caste or Maon. Tame Ponui said his mother was a half-caste, but he did not know what his father was. His name was Ponui. Wittness was induced to. sign the claim form by Mr Young. Witness exercised his vote.

Bertram Anderson Beattie, stationer, Taumarunui, stated he had resided about seven years at Taumarunui. He knew Michael Mulcahey, J. Da'lton, N. A. Winter, Eleanor Winter, J. H. Carrington, Margaret Carrington and John Gilbert Mudgway. These people lived outißde the Taumarunui electorate, as marked on the plan (produced). They were in the Waimarino electorate, having taken up River Trust sections. To Mr B'inlay, witness said he was deputy-returning officer at Taumarunui. He knew Mr and Mrs Winter's vofes had been challenged. Mr Carrington had been on his land about nine months, and Mr Winter about fifteen months. Mr Winter's island had belonged originally to the other side of the river and was portion ot tbe Hunua block. He did not think Mudgway ever has been resident in Taumarunui electorate. Oscar Dassler, farmer, Te Rauamoa, said he knew Eric Smith and Sydney Ormsby, farmers, at Te Rauamoa. According to the plan produced they lived' outside the Taumarunui electorate in the Waikato district. Their names appeared on the roll for Taumarunui. To Mr Finlay: Prior to the last alteration of boundaries these people were entilted to vote in Taumarunui. John Lee, Inspector of Permanent Way for the Railway Depatment, examined by Mr J. B. Sharpleß, said he knew a man named Jens Sohns Jensen. He had been working here about two years, but his permanent home

was at Wellington. He had permission to go home every four weeks. Knew John Bnnister, he came to work on July 2nd, 1914. Knew Robert JohD Wm. Gunn. enginedriver, transferred from Te Kuiti to Dunedn late in Dscember. Witness saw Gunn at the Te Kuiti polling booth on election day. To Mr Justice Cooper: For the last two ' years the platelaying camp had not been outside the electorate. Ellen Louisa McCracken, of Manunui, whose name appeared on the roll crossed out, said she voted at the election. She was not told her namehad been removed from the rcU and made no declaration prior to voting. She had voted at the 1911 election. Mr Justice Coope: In that case the name was wrongly removed from the roll.

Michael Lydon, Sarah Lydon, and Margaret Mary Lydon were admitted, by Mr Finlay, to have been less than twelve months in New Zealand at the time their names were registered, but, it was not admitted that they voted. Rose Isabel Barlow, of Marokooa, said she was on the roll at last election but did not vote. When she was put on the roll she thought she was 21, but subsequently discovered she was only 20 and did not vots. William Jull, senr., labourer, Te Kuiti, said he voted at last election. He signed the claim for enrolment which was brought to him by his sou. There was no witnesses signature on the form when he signed. To Mr Finlay: The nana of witness' son, William Jull, appeared on tha roll. Witness voted at the election believing he had been enrolled. Since then witness discovered he had not been enrolled. Witness understood his son also voted. Witness' claim for enrolment was put in. Asked if it had been signed in the presence of J. B. Young, the attesting witness, the witness said he had not.

Agnes Jull, Wife of the previous witness, said the enrolment claims produced bore her signature. It was written by her husband. She voted at the election. Her son brought her the form. Mr Young was not present when her husband signed the form. She did not know Mr Young.

William Jull, junr., Te Kuiti, identified his wife's signature on a claim furm attested by Mr Young. He (Mr Young) was not present when the claims were signed. They were filled in by Mr Young in witness' presence. Witness brought them back to Mr Young after they had been signed. His brother, John Robert Jull, had signed in the presence of Mr Young. Witness voted at the Municipal Hall. Gilbert G. Hodgkins, recalled, said the number of voters who apparently bad voted at the election according to the marked copy of the roll waa 7252. Under declarations 62 voted; the Expeditionary vote was 252; absent voters' permits, 36; making a total of 7602. The number of ballot papers received was 7917. The total included the number of informal votes recorded. It was not uncommon practice that the returning officer did nat score off the name of voters from the roll. The marked roll would not show that Adolphus Brandon voted twice. Michael O'Hallaran is marked as voting twice; Clara Smith marked as voting twice. After the roll is marked it is open for inspection to the public through the Registrar-General's Department. It is the duty of returning officers to return all papers to Wellington as soon as possible. He considered that the delay in forwarding Taumarunui papers waa excusable under the circumstances, seeing Christmas and New Year holidays intervened. The returning officer had five days' Civil Service holidays. No provisions were made by the Department to provide a permanent official in place of the returning officer, who was on sick leave.

F. W. Schramm produced the claims of persons who voted, but Were not naturalised —some 134 persons. The claims were those on which persons were placed on the Taumarunui roll. The date stamp was placed on all claims as received. Some 24 persons out of the 134 did not vote. The number oE votes polled at Otorohanga 392, Mahirakau 188, Brixton 80. The main roll closed October 7tb, 1914; the supplementary roll November 21st, 19i4. The petition was lodged in the Supreme Court on January 15th. The deposit was lodged at the same time. He examined the roll for 1911. The name of James Henry Crawford did not appear on that roll. William Bell,of Taumarunui, appears, but had been removed before the election of 1911. A claim from Sidney James Griffiths was received but the claim was rot signed by claimant, which shouldfnot have been placed on the roll. He was pressed with work and made repeated applications to the Justice Department, but no notice was taken. He knew Mr Aldridge as the Liberal official organiser, who had left instructions that any coinmunications or other business could be given to Mr J. B. Young, whose office he waa using. The police took proceedings against a person for witnessing claims before being signed by applicants. He met Mr Jennings and advised him to get rid of Young. Mr Jennings said Young was a nuisance, and admitted Young was doing him a lot of harm, and he was trying to get rid of him, but admitted it was hard to push him out. Witness was frequently in Young's office during June, July and Augußt. Saw claims in Young's office filled in and completed and dated about one month ahead, amongst them being Mr Aldridge's the Liberal organiser. John Patterson was removed from main roll by transfer to Waikato. Croßs-examinedfby Mr Finlay, Witness said he knew Mr Young was acting for, the Licensed Victuallers, and also for Mr Jennings, because Young told him so. Young also went on a tour with Mr Howarth, president of the Liberal League. Understood it was an electioneering tour. On Sunday morning witness was at the Commercial Hotel interviewing Mr Johnston, the petitioner's counsel, Mr Johnston interposed and stated j he had every right to brief witneßSCß' I evidence.

Witness said he went io New Plymouth previously to sue Mr Johnston. He was aware, as a reluming officer, he was in a judicial capacity. Mr Johnston paid witness' expenses to New Plymouth. He was not a political partisan, and would like to know if counsel thought so. Mr Finlay: I certainly do. Was under impression Mr Jennings was trying to get rid of Young. It was sworn to in Court that Young was acting for the Licensed Victuallers' Assocition. Believed Mr .Jennings published a notice in the Chronicle disclaiming any connection with the Licensed Victuallers' Association or their representative on October 22nd. It was not strange that Young should be touring the district getting names on the roll. It would be part of his business. Apart from the point concerning the attestation, witness believed the Julls were entitled to vote. Had no reason to believe claims of others on the list had not been signed regnlarlv in front of the witness, Young, except Young's system of attesting before signatures were attached. The votes at Okahukura were 96 for Jennings, 18 for Wilson, 2 informal. He knew the type of voter there. Witness commenced the scrutiny of the roll about 9.30 on the Monday. Mr Jennings appeared about half an hour later. Had seen Mr Jennings about 9 o'clock on Saturday night and tolrl him about the scrutiny. Mr Jennings did not then mention Mr Buchanan. On the Monday Mr Jennings saw witness with the object of substituting Mr Buchanan for Mr Walsh. Mr Buchanan was coming overland from New Flymouth. Mr Jennings was upset over the refusal. Mr Jennings wished to see Mr Walsh and witness brought him to the door. Mr Jennings came to the room about three times. Once Mr Jennings came in when the scrutiny was going on. The reason Mr Jennings would go in to see him was' that he was looking up the Act. Mr Jenningß' presence would have no effect on te scrutiny.

Mr Justice Cooper asked if the peitioner relied upon the visit to the scrutiny, room as affecting the election.

Mr Johnston said he never relied singly upon the visit of Mr Jennings to the room, but on the cumulative effect of a number of irregularities. THE TIME LIMIT.

After the luncheon adjournment yesterday, counsels' argument was heard concerning the point raised by Mr Finlay as to the petition not having been lodged in time. Mr Finlay contended the period from which the 28 days within which tho petition should be logded should be taken from the date endorsed on the writ by the returning officer In this instance the date was December 17th. and he contended this was the date which should be taken as declaring the poll. If his contention was upheld the petition was lodged a day too late. Counsel quoted the case of the Wairarapa petition, in which this contention had been upheld by Chief Justice Prendergast and Justice Conolly.

Mr Johnston admitted the Wairarapa case appeared to bo against the petition, but contended that elections were now governed by entirsly new legislation, which provided for the declaration of the poll on a Bpecial'form. Tha date of the writ and the data of the declaration of the poll were entirely separate, and time was'taken from the declaration of the poll. Mr Justice Chapman said it was apparently premeditated that the declaration of the poll should precede the return of the writ. In thiß case the writ had been returned before the poll had been declared. Judgment on the point was reserved.

Piko Puotahi said he was on the European roll for Taumarunui. He was employed at the lime works. He was a full-blooded Maori. Mr Young asked him to sign a form for this roll. Witness voted at Te Kuiti. Francis Peacock Corkill, accountant, New Plymouth, said ho knew Mr Jennings, who lived at Courtenay street, New Plymouth. Mr Jennings was not a commercial traveller or an nctor. On the laranaki roll of 1914 Mr Jennings' name appeared. It was not transferred till November 1914. To Mr Finlay: Witness would not know Mr Jennings' movements, or how frequently he was away from New Plymouth. He had heard Mr Jennings was working in thi« district for the Auckland Star; also electioneering. Had no means of knowing how Mr Jennings earned his living during the last three years. * Eustace James Brown, of Mahirakau, said he voted at Mahirakau school. It was one room 18ft by 14ft. School desk was provided for the accommodation of voters. There was no place to which voters could retire for privacy to mark their papers. It was open to others to see. In reply to Mr Finlay witness described the interior of the school prepared for voting. He did not think there was sufficient secrecy. Witness did not know the leanings of the workmen on the railway, and had not attended any of the candidates' meetings. Thomas McKean, contractor, Okahukura, scrutineer for Mr Wilson at Mahirakau booth, said tbe booth was open to receive votes about 9.30. There were no screens in the room, which was too small. Witness saw nothing improper during the taking of the poll on the part of the officers conducting the poll, but the small space available in the room was often blocked by voters. One elector objected to the fact that there was no screen, and others could see how votes were being cast. Witness on three occasions saw ladies voting and each time another person was at the desk.

To Mr Finlay, witness said he accompanied Mr Wilson through the Ohura. Mr Wilson held a meeting at the 14-mile. The meeting was against Mr Wilson. The district was strongly against Mr Wilson. He did not think the result of the election was materially affected by the cramping at the polling booth. Robert Wells, a retired farmer,

postmaster of Brixton, near Waitara, said he was a deputy-returning officer. Witness' house was the polling place. Witness was officially by himself. Usually about forty voted at Brixton, but in the afternoon another forty came from Waitara, and witncsß was rushed. Mr Crawford came and offered to take the numbers and assist to get the rush over. To Mr Finlay: What Crawford did was done openly. A lady also proffered assistance, but witness refused. What Mr Crawford did could not have affected the roßult of the poll. In reply to witness as to whether there was any slur on him, Mr Justice Chapman said it appeared that he had done, the only thing possible to have the votes taken.

Robert Short McDonald, land agent, Otorohanga, who acted as deputy-re-turning officer for the licensing poll, described arrangement for taking the poll at Otorohanga. In the afternoon the hall was crowded between 3 o'clock and r>.3o. The official in charge spoke to the crowd but 3id not take active stepn to clear the hall. There Were two compartments provided for the voters to retire into. Witness knew Edward Jackson. Hb applied for a voting paper on the license issue. Could not say if he got an electoral paper. To Mr Finlay, witness said it was raining during the time the hall was crowded. Don't think the crowding affected the result of the voting. To Mr Johnston, witness said he Haw several people handing papers to others over other people's heads to pass into the boxes. Frederick O. R Phillips, solicitor, Otorohanga, was a scrutineer at Otorohanga, gave similar evidence to previous witness respecting the crowding. Witness placed forms acroßa the body of the hall about fourteen feet from the staee bo that the stage should not become crowded. The voting was taking place on the stage. The stage was still too congected to allow the returning officer to hand out the papers quickly enough Witness did not think anybody was deprived of the opportunity of voting. Witness saw Edward Jackßon in the booth. Don't know if he voted.

To Mr Finlay, witness Baid it might be that some of the rail-sitters were affected in the way they voted by th? big crowd being present. (Left Sitting.)