HUTT NO-LICENSE POLL.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9350, 20 January 1909, Page 8

HUTT NO-LICENSE POLL.

THE CASE TO BE ANSWERED

Per Press Association. Wellington, January 19. At the hearing of the petition against the Hutt licensing poll today the Court gave its decision on the matter in the petition which it had decided the respondents were called upon to answer. Summarised, these are as follows: — (1) That the Returning Officer illegally neglected to scrutinise the rolls used by the deputy returning officers in the licensing poll previous to the recount; that “partisans of the trade ” assisted recount; that the Oddfellows’ Hall was copiously littered with waste paper and rubbish while toe recount was taking pla.hs; that at the recount the Returning Officer could nob exercise effective control over his assistants; that thß|Retnrning Officer on divers occasions during the recount left the hall, and that during his absence the ballot papers were so distributed about,the there was nothing to prevent them being tampered with ; that the Returning Officer allowed intoxicating liquor ' to be brought into the hall, and such liquor was drunk by certain of the parsons engaged in the count during its progress; that during the course of the count, while the Returning Officer was not in control and while some 2000 baillot papers were spread out in the room and across the stage the opening of the door allowed the wind to scatter some hundreds of them over the floor and they were picked up indiscriminately by everyone present, and there was nothing to prevent their being tampered With* that one ballot paper was during the count either lost or stolen and was never found or recovered by the Returning Officer, and has not been found or recovered to this day, and the vote or votes recorded thereon has or have never been added to the number of votes polled as officially declared; that in one instance at least a ballot paper which recorded a valid vote for NoLicense was during the record tampered with by some person in the room drawing a pencil line through the third line, and thus making it invalid; that a ballot paper which was polled in the principal polling booth when the votes were counted by the deputy returning officer after the closing of the poll was fonnd to have the two top lines wholly scratched out and a pencil mark through the word “I,” the first word of the third line, and on that acoonnt was held to be informal by the deputy returning officer, but no ballot paper so marked was seen at the recount before the Magistrate; that the count was conducted in so grossly careless a mannner that some person present was enabled to place 24 ballot papers, each of which contained a valid vote for Reduction and a valid vote for No-license, among the ballot papers which recorded votes for Continuance, and these 24 votes for Continuance were not counted as votes either for Reduction or No-lioense; that the oonut was conducted in so careless a mannner that two ballot papers containing perfectly clear votes for Reduction and No-license, and bearing the mark and not containing any writing or mark whereby tbe voter could be identified other than the writing in the corner by the deputy returning officer were rejected as informal. (2) That several were personated at the poll, and that every such vote thus illegally purporting to be the vote of any such person should be disallowed and struck off the said poll. (8) That votes were recorded in the names of persons on the roll . although snoh persons had left the district and had not resided therein at any time previous to the said licensing poll, and that all such votes , should be disallowed and struck off tbe said poll. (4) That in a number of cases where voters who desired to vote for No-lioense inadvertently spoiled their ballot paper upon which to record their vote the deputy returning officer refused to supply them with frpsh ballot paper. (5) That during the hours in Which the poll was being taken a hotelkeeper drove a motor car about tbe public streets of the district taking voters to the poll, npon which was displayed a large effigy, painting, or placard, representing a working man holding up a pot of beer witht be word “Liberty” written iu large characters thereon, iu contravention of section 35 of the Licensing Act, 1908. (6) That during the hours in which the poll was being taken an unknown person drove a conveyance through the public streets of Petone, in which conveyance was a large square tink, on the sides of which was displayed a similar effigy, painting, or nlaoard, and with the word “Beer” written in large characters thereon. The remainder of the allegations requiring answering relate to the supplying of free beer during polling hours and to the Provincial Hotel, at Upper Hutt, being open daring polling hc^nrs. With respect to clause 17, that the Returning Officer habitually sopke to voters in the principal booth, the Court intimated that it did not require an answer to it. Mr Atkinson challenged the accuracy of this, and Mr Skerrett consented to this being included in the questions requiring answering.