OHINEMURI LICENSING POLL.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVI, Issue 10064, 4 February 1909, Page 4

OHINEMURI LICENSING POLL.

(Per Press Association.) Waihi, February 3. In connection with the petition to upset the Olunemuri licensing' poll Mr Adams, for the respondents, addressed the Court, lie criticised the petition, and. said, that its move at first was evidently to allege charges of dishonesty and theft, and also to allege dishonorable conduct on the part of the returning officers. These were veiled and ha-d been dropped, and hopelessly failed as regards the advancement of any proof in support. He referred to tlie suspicion levelled against Slevin regarding the kevs. and the . failure of any direct evidence, and also spoke of the statements made by Roljcrt Sliaw with reference to the' alloyed instructions on the part of Xathan, prompting perjury on the part of his -deputies. (Anuisel "next pointed out that under the Act of 1904 no poll had yet Ixvn set aside. The onus, he continued. of -proving an affirmative -case was on the. petitioners, who had to j show that the result of- the poll was affected by irregularities. Referring I to the Akaroa election petition, he said ' that 10 out of 100 polling places had : Um-ti ehtscd' before the proper time, thus <lelwirring certain electors from recording ; their votes, and that poll had been voided. Quoting Jaw reports in support, M.r Adains reminded the Court that it should be iirst satisfied as a matter ol * 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 affect the result of tlie poll, and also on the question of evidence. Counsel referred the Court to "Rogers on Elections" (page 61)' regarding the definition of -'result" as applied to a poll, which was not to be confused with tho : matter of' majority. ".Maxwell on 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' the-poll 'or alter the decision of the electors. The case of the.petitioners,, he said, was based on the unfounded. I 'assumption that it was the duty of the returning officer to see that voters voted in secret. Counsel affirmed in this connection that such arviuty. was cast on voters-' themselves. If the returning officers were "supposed -to "dry. nurse" voters then the whole'method of conducting an election, he contended, to be recast. Counsel 'then reviewed, the clauses of the -petition at. considerable length, and finally contended that the'petition resolved, itself into the allegations 'as made-in clauses 8 and 9 re. the admittance of more than six voters into-the booth at one'time and on the .question of secrecy. • The' allegations, he submitted, had not been in any way provecl by the petitioners. 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-con-tention in the'-Ta'heta 'case that'- there no obligation on -the / part of a.returning . officer to 'provide, inner compartments;had. been upheld. The v question therefore, argued of secrecy was not • an' ' irregularity,' but- an* impropriety -on* the part of,persons at Quoting. Constable Dr is coil's evidence, he maintained that the voting compartments as provided were sufficient for the purpose of secrecy, and voters could vote with secrecy-if .they liked.' He deprecated Driscoll'sVevidence, and .pointed :'out. that ,he t 'had ample., opportunity during his examination'in chief to make' the same statements as he .did on being recalled.* Not one witness,; lie contended, jhad been called*to show that}his' or , her vote had • been 6een. No evidence had been produced to show how particular person had voted or.that a-single licensing* paper .had been. seen. Counsel quoted a lengthy list of witnesses covering a period. of r the -alleged difficult • times to vote, showing that each witness had recorded his vote without delay or'"difficulty. In conclusion counsel submitted that the case for the petitioners had "been'hopelessly . arid absolutely shattered. Mr Adams commenced 1 has address at 9 o'clock, concluding at the adjournment this afternoon. Mr Skerrett, on behalf of the petitioners, addresses the Court to-morrow. s « .