HUTT LICENSING POLL.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9352, 22 January 1909, Page 5

HUTT LICENSING POLL.

Per Press Association

Weilington, January 31

Hutt Local Option poll enquiry was continued to-day, when the evidence for the defence included that of the Mr J. R. Mothes, Returning Officer. He denied that he was interested in the result of the poll more one way than another. He denied that he appointed trade partizans as officials. He believed that of of 34 deputies 16 were abstainers. It was a gross misstatement to say he allowed liquor in the main booth daring the count. The placing of 33 No-License votes in a Continuance bundle must have been purely accidental. During cross-examination he denied entirely the suggestions made against his conduct of the poll during the hearing of the case. He was licensee of a hotel 18 years ago, but since then had had no interest in hotels.

The Returning Officer denied the accusations made against him that he had habitually spoken to voters daring the progress of the poll, also that he had permitted liquor to be taken into the booths and consumed during polling hours. Liquor had been supplied with the luncheons. This was not improper, and he had no power to prevent it. Addressing the Court, Mr Skerrett contended that illiterate voting papers which bore the initials of the Deputy Returning Officers, and which were disallowed by Dr, McArthur, S.M., at the Magisterial inquiry, should be included in the votes. If it were necessary to have a final scrutiny of the votes seven of these were for Continuance and four for No-Lcense. so that it would mean that the Ro-License party would have to find nine votes to succeed in their petition. With respect to absent voters, he argued that these should not be allowed, as the provisions of the Act only related to electoral polls. Mr Atkinson, for the petitioners, argued that the papers of illiterate voters which did not bear the names of the deputies should not be included in the papers or the final scrutiny, quoting authorities upon the point. He also held the reverse view to Mr Skerrett regarding absent votes, contending that the spirit of the law is in favour of their being Included. He commented upon the various allegations in the petition, and the inferences to be drawn from the circumstances surrounding the various instances connected with the polling day. Irregularities had been proved, and it was not for the petitioners to say how much they had affected the result of the election. The onus of proof was upon the respondents, and they had failed to meet it. If the Court decided against the petitioners it would have to do so against general principles and Jagainst the decision which had led to the quashing of the Newtown poll six years ago. The Court intimated that it would carefully consider the matter, and give its decision on the 30th inst.