HAWKE'S BAY ELECTION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 220, 24 February 1915, Page 4

HAWKE'S BAY ELECTION.

HEARING the petition. CHARGES OF DUAL VOTING. ' By Telegraph—Press Association. Napier, Last Night. The Hawke's Bay election inquiry proceeded at noon. Mr. Skerrett said that, as the result of a scrutiny, counsel h\d eliminated all cascs-of apparent dual voting for which there appeared a reasonable explanation. There still remained seven cases for investigation. In the cases agreed upon there was a reasonable ivssnjnption that mistakes had been made through the similarity of names. Evidence was then taken for the investigation of seven eases. Evidence and argument in reference to dual voting or personation was continned after luncheon. In one easewhere two votes had been recorded under the same qualification, the person '•"'lvim? the name had left the district. It could not, therefore, be ascertained where the proper vote was cast, and' Mr. Skerrett asked that both bo disallowed. In another case, Henry Hodges; east a vote of Mahafca, and another was; recorded under the same name at Wai-. roa, where Hodgers had a' son named Henry. Mr. Skerrett asked that the; , vote at "Wairoa bo disallowed. There.were three cases in which two persons, voted under mc " qualification, and evidence was called to show where theproper vote was cast. Mr. Skerrett contended that in these cases the second' vote should he disallowed. A Bixth case, was mentioned in which a man had been given a ballot-paper while underthe influence of liquor The voter left the booth with the paper, which was. taken from him before being marked. He, voted, however, at another booth later on. Mr. Skerrett said that once the paper had been issued, the voterwas licit entitled to get another one, and the second vote should therefore be disallowed.

Sir John Findhiy contended that the" first vote was not a vote under section 142 of the Act. In reference to othercases, he submitted that the production of marked rolls was not sufficient evi''"nce of dual voting or personation. The true inference was that a mistakehad been made, and n/t that a crimi?.hiiil been committed.

The Court then went on to deal with votes cast under declaration, a numberof which were objected to on the grounds of ambiguity and the form of" declaration used; that some were notsigned; that in some cases more than one person purported to mUke a declaration on the same form; and that some of the declarations were made by peoplenot entitled to vote. The hearing was adjourned at 4.40" p.m. until 10 o'clock to-morrow.