OHINEMURI LICENSING POLL.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVI, Issue 10065, 5 February 1909, Page 1

OHINEMURI LICENSING POLL.

(Per Press Association.) Waihi, February 4. When the Court in connection with the Ohinemuri licensing case was resumed thin morning, Mr Skerrett, counsel for the petitioners, addressed the Court in reply to Mr Adams. He commenced by saying that he agreed that the result of the inquiry might prove of serious consequence. According to the case for the respondents there were the sentimental and moral interests of the ]S T o-license party at stake against the inhibition of many places of business in which great sums were invested,, but in the case for the petitioners it was their desire to have the matter again referred to the people. The no-license, people wanted to uphold the poll, which was admittedly irregular, lie contended that the vital principle involved was the complete absence of everything that guarded the secrecy of the voter. Counsel went

on to affirm* that in short the qucstioi

at issue was: Is there to be no limit to the irregularities committed in connection with such elections? Was the Court, he asked, merely a court of appeal, with functions only affecting either the striking off or -adding on of votes'; The essential provisions of the Act were (o safeguard the secrecy of the ballot, and be would show that they had in this instance been flagrantly and substantially violated. Referring to the provisions of the Act regarding the admission of only six voters into the booth, he pointed out that the object was to provide an atmosphere mitainted by inlluence and conditions for absolute secrecy. He also reviewed sec tion 116 of the Act regarding the. construction of booths. If his friends were correct then only six voters should have been admitted to' the booth. Counsel went on to argue at length as to the respective responsibility of the deputy returning officers and to'the motive of the Act, which showed that each returning officer was responsible for his respective number of ballot papers, and. should be in a position to check his used and unused papers, which in the present case could not have been done under the arrangements. Column to the question of secrecy, he emphatically denied that it was not the duty of the returning officer to provide reasonable and adequate- precautions for secret voting. He submitted that each one of the provisions for the preservation of the secrecy of the ballot had been ilagrautly and substantially violated during times when a greater number of votes were be ing cast. He would rely on the doctrine set forth in Woodward and Parsons, and in the Islington case, that an election tc be valid would have to be carried really and substantially under provision* of the Act. If there "was no valid election he submitted there could be no result, and the Court was absolved from considering the question of the number of votes. This argument had not been met by Mr Adams. The Akaroa case was not a case where it was suggested the election had not been conducted according to the Act, but- that a number of persons had been prevented from recording their voles, and thus affecting the result. Referring to his friend's remark that no poll had been upset since 1904, he would venture to say that never in the history of the statute bad such disregard been shown for the provisions of the Act. Each case, he contended, must stand on its own merits. Coming to the facts of the present ease, he submitted that the returning officer had grossly failed to make adequate provisions for voting. The watchword of the day was, "Let'em all come." Who, be asked, was in the best position to conduct a poll? The voter who came in a hurry to vote was not in a proper position to observe, but the officials who were there to note events were undoubtedly in the best positions to say. All the witnesses for the petitioners Vent to corroborate the evidence as to the numbers admitted. Commenting on the evidence for the respondents, counsel contended that the evidence of Mr Nathan corroborated that of the petitioners as to the numbers admitted. Other officials and witnesses for the respondents were also quoted in corroboration. "Could one wish," commented coun sel, "a more emphatic corroboration of the petitioners' evidence in this respect ?" Still, if such corroboration had not been forthcoming he, would be prepared to rely upon the fact that new compartments had to be erected, ami people sent over to the east-end booth, beside general com plaints, and the fact thai the returning officer had to give out papers. What could naturally be expected in the case of a. booth designed for the admission ol six when up to 90 voters were admitted.? Sach conditions set tip the opportunity for the expression of views, especially in connection with those strongly in favor of no-license. Was it not to be expected that under such conditions voters would coin-

pare their papers, and they had evidence to that effect. Counsel then quoted copious evidence to show that proper secrecy could not be oteerved, also in connection with the corroboration of the fact that voters were in certain occasions overlooked whilst recording their votes; also as regarded the general disorder prevailing in the booth. "Evidence was also quoted to show that remarks were made in connection with the striking out of the top line, and that the Rev. White was seen conversing with ladies. Counsel, continuing his argument, pointed out that the re mark also applied to the Uev. Wrigley, another official. Counsel stated that the admissions made by the witnesses for the respondents fully corroborated the evidence for the petitioners. He went on to submit that the evidence of Constable Driseoll concluded the matter, and referred to what counsel termed "the unjustifiable comments by Mr Adams." Witness' action, he considered, was the only action an honest man could adopt in the face of his refusal to give evidence in the first place and in face of the questions asked him during his first examination. Counsel considered that the constable had shown n-reat courage in giving the evidence he had. It was also a fact that a certain section of the community always credited wrong and improper motives to those who were against them ; in fact, termed them liars. Mr Skerrett concluded a great peroration, contending that the secrecy of the ballot had be-en" violated beyond all possible doubt. The Court reserved their decision till the Ist of March next.