HUTT LICENSING POLL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 329, 22 January 1909, Page 2

HUTT LICENSING POLL.

ENQUIRY IU3AGES ITS FiXAL BXAUJai. ) iJJSUSI'UK 10 B£ IUVJi-N O.V TUB ' Sflth,

iiy Telegraph.-—.fress AosuiiaUuu. Wellington, Uist ..\iglit. The enuuiry into the i-iuu m»...i u(>tiou poll readied its iiuul stages to-day, when evidence tor the i'csi>ouuciiis w.\-> concluded and counsel addressed Lije Court on tliu legal aspect. The Returning uiucer (jir. Kicnard ilothcs) denied the accusations made against him that lie iiad habitually, spoken to voters dming the progress I 01 uie ijoII; also that lie had permitted liquor to be taKen into the oootlis and consumed during polling hours. Liiiuor had been supplied with- the luncheons. This was not iinijnioper,

and he had no power to prevent it. lit addressing the Court, Mr. Ske-rrctC contended that illiterate voting papers which bore the initials of a deputy returning officer, and ii'Mch were disallowed by Dr. Jit-Arthur, S.M., at tiie magisterial inquiry, should be included in tlie votes if it worn necessary to liave a tinal scrutiny of the votes. .Seven 01 these we it for continuance I and four for -io-li<-ciisi, so that It woulu pie.au that the no-license party would have to iind nine votes tu succeed in their petition. With respect to the absent voters he argued that thes■ should not be allowed, as Die provisions of the Act only related to electoral polls.

.Mr. Atkinson, for the petitioners, argued that illiterate votes which did not hear the names of deputies should not I be included in the papers tor the filial scrutiny, quoting authorities upon the point. ' He also held the .worse view ,to Mr. Skorrcll regarding absent votes, contending tliat the spirit of the law was in favour of their being included. Ho commented upon, the various allegations in the iietition and the inferences to be drawn from the circumstances .surrounding the various instances connected with polling day. I rregulariti ~. had been proved, and it was not for | the petitioners to say now much Hiey i 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 if, would have to do so against general principles and against the decision whieh had led to the quashing of the Newtown poll six years

!ago. I The Court intimated that it would 1 I carefully consider the matte and give j its decision on the 30th inst. I