HUTT LICENSING POLL.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9346, 15 January 1909, Page 5

HUTT LICENSING POLL.

Per Press Association,

Wellington, January 14,

A Magisterial inquiry into certain phases of the recent Local Option Poll for the Hutt electorate was commenced at Petone yesterday. The enquiry was conducted before Dr. McArthur, S.M., and Messrs Riddell and James, S.M.’s. Messrs A. R. Atkinson and H. H. Ostler appeared for petitioners, and Messrs Skerrett, K. 0., Oraoroft Wilson, and Blair for respondents.

Mr Atkinson said the contention of petitioners was that the Oourt could declare that No-License was carried or that the poll was void. He detailed the proceedings which had taken place after the election, and said the change made on the recount was that Continuance was carried by three votes. He would show that there had been gross irregularities, which should be sufficient to prevent the poll holding good, seeing that it was carried by such a narrow majority as three votes. The charge that there had been dual voting would not be proceeded with, while only 13 cases of alleged impersonation would be gone on with. Regarding the voters who had left the district, and who were galleged gto have illegally voted, he would only proceed with five of these cases. If they were established, and also the other irregularities, it should be sufficient to alter the figures to allow petitioners to succeed on their first prayer that No-License had been carried. In respect to clause that deputy returning officers at seven booths had been guilty of negligence the Act porvided that the papers should bo forwarded to the Returning .Officer with all possible despatch. Instead- of that they were kept Jnntil the following morning before being delivered. The official recount was nothing short of a marvel of incompetence and a perfect model of how not to do it. One paper had been lost during the recount. The door of the hall had been opened, and a gale of wind came in and the papers had been scattered all over the room. Two papers were lost for a time, but one was eventually recovered. During the course of the recount one paper had either been tampered with (he could not say by whom) or after having been checked, the vote recorded by the paper had been wrongly credited. In the first instance there was absolutely unanswerable evidence of gross carelessness, which should make the Bench chary of allowing a poll carried under such circumstances by such a narrow margin. Beer was flowing in many parts of the district in an irregular and illegal manner. Evidence was given" by those in whose names it is alleged there was impersonation. The evidence of two deputy returning officers, [who had kept the voting papers in their possession all night, was taken.