NEWTOWN NO – LICENSE BURST UP. Another Lease of Life for the Trade.

Free Lance, Volume III, Issue 140, 7 March 1903, Page 8

NEWTOWN NO - LICENSE BURST UP. Another Lease of Life for the Trade.

AFTER laborious taking of evdence, lengthy argument from learned counsel, appeal to the Supreme Couit on doubtful law points, and much swatting of authorities and precedents, Magistrate McArthur has declared the New town no-license poll void. There is no doubt he took great pains with and bestowed close attention on the case. As he says himself "I have read every case and reference quoted by counsel, and heaps more," so that he cannot be accused of jumping to his conclusions *■ * He felt himself bound to declare the election voad on two grounds — First, that the total number of voters whose votes were recorded was misstated by reason of the omission to include votes recorded, but which could not be countr edbecaiuse of non-oompliance with section 128 of the Electoral Act, 1902. Second, that irregularities occurred in taking the poll, which tended to defeat the fairness of the election. ■k *■ *■ Now, it seems to* us that if the first gi ound is sufficient w arranty for voiding an election, then almost every election held in November last could be successfully appealed against. The practice adopted by the New tow n returning officer appears to be the one usually followed. In any case, it now behoves the Legislature to take steps to place tins particular question entirely beyond the region of doubt, because, as the law stands, it certainly is enshrouded in mist and haze Before Dr. McArthur could amve at a decision, he had to read up "heaps'' of English cases and precedents, and apply rules of verbal construction couched in good legal Latin. * * * Law and commonsense don't alw ays nin together, and in this case it strikes us rather forcibly that the will of the people has been rendered abortive through no fault of their own. The second ground for voiding the election, viz., that irregularities occurred in taking the poll which tended to defeat the fairness of the election, seems, to our inexpert lay mind, when we come to scrutinise these "irregularities," to be very thin and quaky material for upsetting an election. What are thev 9 The chief of them are —(1) That at. the Brooklyn polling-booth the electoral

<ukl licensing voting papeis weie not gi\ en out simultaneously , (2) that at the same place theie weie, on cliffeient occasions, more than six voters in the booth at one time , (3) that the representative of the No-license League was allow ed to go into several booths on cliffeient occasions, (4) that at Brooklyn the papers weiei not made up and sent to the returning officer till the following day . (o) that one elector's name was w rongf ully struck off the roll , ((3) that thiee names still remain subject, if called on, to a scrutiny. ■* * * None of these occurrences appear to us very unusual on polling-day anywhere in New Zealand, and if they are sufficient to void an election then the difficulty will be to find one that has been conducted in strict compliance with the law. The conduct of these elections is confided not to lawyers, but to laymen, who do their best according to their lights, and the sense with which they are endowed. The first tw o "irregularities" cited above don't seem to carry much weight as tending to ''defeat the fairness- of the election " As for the third, the person referred to has explained that he entered the booths with the sanction of the returning officer, to find out if the scrutineers wanted anything. As. for the fourth ' irregularity," its force is discounted by the fact that the votes were carefully counted in the presence of scrutineers for both sides before the papers were put away. The fifth dees not affect the result, and the sixth merely calls for a scrutiny. * T * No one who knows Dr. McArthur will entertain thei slightest doubt that he has not. allowed the least bias 1 to sway his judgment. He has, to the best of his ability, weighed thei evidence and interpreted the law so as to arrive at an impartial decision. And, uninfluenced either by fear or favour, he has pronounced his dictum, and set forth very clearly the grounds upon which it is based. All the same, there is, very naturally, keen disappointment in the public mind that after a poll, which w as very carefully carried out as poll® go, all the trouble and expense of obtaining an expression of opinion from the electors on this liquor question should go for naught. That disappointment deepens by reason of the uncertain position m which matters now stand. * * * It is extremely doubtful whether the law w ill allow the electors of New tow n to exercise their local option about licensing versus prohibition until the next general election. If things run their regular course, that will be three years hence. And yet a three-fifths majority of the electors have already show n that their desire is to shut up all the hotels m Newtown. Commonsense and fair play both suggest that, as the poll has been upset by irregularities w Inch are held to have defeated its fairness, another poll should be taken as early as possible. If the law will not permit that, to be done, then, the first duty of the Legislature when it meets, a few months hence, should be to alter the law so as to meet the exceptional circumstances of the case. Certainly, the electors of Newtown ought not, for technical reasons, to be deprived of the right enjoyed b\ eveiy other constituency of deciding now whether hotels shall or shall not exist in their midst