THE MASTERTON LOCAL OPTION POLL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3090, 12 January 1909, Page 5

THE MASTERTON LOCAL OPTION POLL.

HEARING OF THE LICENSE PARTY'S PETITION.

TO INVALIDATE THE POLL.

SEVERAL GROUNDS IN PETITION ABANDONED. The hearing of the petition lodged by the License Party against the resclt of the Local Option Poll at Masterton came on again before Messrs W. P. James, A. D. Thomson and Dr. A. McArthur, S.M's, at the Courthouse, yesterday afternoon. The petitioners were represented by Messrs C. P. Skerrett, K.C., of Wellington, and C. A. Pownall, of Masterton, and Messrs P. L. Hollings, Masterton, and Mr H. Ostler, of Wellington, appeared for the NoLicense Party. Mr Boilings first entered an objection to the petition being heard in respect of the allegations contained in paragraphs A D and clause 3, on the ground that under the Licensing Act the Court had no jurisdiction to take evidence regarding these paragraphs and clause of the petition. Counsel submitted that; the rights of the petitioners were restricted to an inquiry into the conduct of the poll itself, and not as to the acts of persons not connected with the poll. Section 33 of the Licensing Act defined the jurisdiction and outside this the Court had no jurisdiction. The Court was restricted to saying whether by any irregularities the poll was void, and section 35 set out the irregularities. Section 34 defined the punishment and nowhere outside that section did the Act give the Court jurisdiction, to enquire into the Acts of the Government or the Minister, and this was what the petitioners asked. In the case of Bond v. Johnson, the jurisdiction was confined to the matters set out under the Statute, and j thejpresent case was parallel. Section ; 37 'again clearly defined the powers ! under the Act. If, as was contended, the poll was void on the question of non-advertising of boundaries it became void without the Court having to say so. Counsel submitted that as the Court was not an electoral Court it had no power to go into thh question. Counsel therefore moved that these grounds in the petition oe struck out. Mr Hollings also moved that clause B of the petition be struck out, which set out that all the electors except the petitioners were not adults, this being an evasive allegation and one much too wide for the Court to deal with. Counsel had asked Mr Pownall to supply him with the names of persons who were alleged to be under 21 who voted, but none were supplied. Were they supplied now counsel would be satisfied, but in the absence of particulars it was ridiculous for the Court to be asked to enquire whether seven thousand electors were adults or not. No particulars were supplied either on the allegation that persons who were on the roll in another electorate voted in the, Masterton electorate, besides which if they did it was not an offence.

Mr Skerrett, in reply, contended Mr Hollings' address was quite unnecessary, and had he waited until the speaker's opening he would have found that his objections were much ' reduced. It was not proposed to pro- J ceed on the petition regarding grounds A and D, as it was found that the proper Gazette notices had been properly given. With respect to clause 3 counsel contended that jurisdiction was not conferred by section 33 of the Licensing Act to go behind the roll. Although that jurisdiction was conferred hy section 196, clause (f) of the Legislature Act 1908 that section did not apply to licensing polls. A question for the Court was whether under section 33 the words "voting when not entitled to vote" gave the Court power to go behind the roll. The only hope of the petitioners under the clause of the petition being dealt with was to reduce the majority for No-License—a not very important point under the circumstances. In answer to Mr-Thom-son, Mr Skerrett said that clearly if a person gave wrong answers to the questions put under section 128, his vote could be struck out, because that would not be going behind the roll. Counsel quoted the Newtown Licensing case in support of his contentions. Mr Ostler said that while the last point might have been relevant to the Newtown Licensing case it had lost its relevancy since the Act of 1904. He contended that the point was of considerable importance, as petitions in other parts would depend largely on the Court's decision on it. Counsel submitted that the construction of the statute was different to that put upon it by Mr Skerrett.

Mr Skerrett said that if section 33 were to have the same effect as section 196, sub-section (f), it should read "disallow the vote of any voter whose name had been illegally placed or retained on the roll." The Bench decided to reserve decision on the point, and proceed with the other grounds. The petition was then gone on with, after petitioners' counsel had stated that paragraphs A and D and clause 3 were waived. Mr Skerrett, in opening the case for the petitioners, stated that the result ot the poll had been declared as follows ny the Returning Officer: —Valid votes, 5,423; Continuance, 2,011; Reduction, 2,522; NoLicense, 3,287. A majority for NoLicense of 33 1-5 votes. The Magisterial recount gave the figures as valid votes, 5,391; Continuance, 2,100: Reduction, 2,504; No-Li-cense, 3,266; the majority for NoLicense being reduced by these figures to 31 2-5 votes. Proceeding on clause C of the petition, that there was no issue regarding increase of licenses, that clause woild not be prersxl, on account of a legislative bungle preventing it. Counsel had no doubt that it would not be difficult to establish that the 25 per cent, increase of population had been made in the district, although through the mode of computation provided tor by legislation, was such as to make it impossible to compute the increase of population. Section 145 of the Act of 1891 was the machinery clause for this purpose, and it was perfectly useless. Passing on to the facts, counsel said that on the morning of the poll a grave irregularity had occurred. A motor-car

driven by Mr Boilings and containing Mr Pragnell and other members of the No-License Party had been driven through the town bearing a staff and banners relating to tha poll, leaving the Y.M.C.A. Rooms. Under section 35, sub-clause C, this was an irregularity, Mr HoHingjJ interpolated that he would .aclmfS that the procession started nt 8.30 and terminated at five minutes to /line.

Mr Skerreu said he was instructed that the procession commenced before 9 and continued until after 9. It must be apparent to the Court that the procession was for the purpose of influencing votes, otherwise its object would be non-existent. Opposing counsel had admitted that this was one of the irregularities which the Court had power to deal with under sub-clause 2, sub-section 3, of the Licensing Act. Section 179 of the Legislature Act was even more strict in regard to this class of irregularity. Section 33 of the Licensing Act an irregularity calculated to influence votes was meant, f»nd it was left to the opinion of the Court whether an irregularity did or did not influence votes, as no evidence could be taken as io how an elector might have voted. If Mr Hollings had said the procession concluded nofore nine o'clock it was a deliberate attempt to evade the law, and people who played with fire were frequently burnt. The next alleged irregularity cited was that cartoon placards were posted all over Masterton in favour of No-License bearing the words "Strike out the. top line," and other words calculated to influence votes. This was an irregularity under section 35, sub-section C, of the Licensing Act. Even though it would be , alleged that the placards were put up before election day the fact that they were still there during the election meant that a demonstration was constituted. If it were not so a person might post such placards up three minutes prior to the opening of the poll. If such were allowed the Act would be rendered entirely negatory, and any person might make and maintain any demonstration of a like nature. Paragraph 4ot the petition was next referred to, alleging that a voter named McDonald had entered Pori booth and refused to leave when requested to by the Returning Officer. Paragraph 2, C, that voters were allowed to enter the main polling booth at Masterton was also relied on, and also the allegation that a voter named Bright had gone to Rongokokako booth to vote, a. d found it had not been opened by 9.30 a.m. Then it would be urged that the Returning Officer had no express authority to issue fresh ballot papers, where an elector had spoilt a paper. Counsel contended that under the Electoral Act by spoilt papers were meant papers spoilt by the Returning Officer or his deputies. Under the Licensing Act this contention was borne out strongly as the is=ue of one ballot paper was authorised. Though it might have been the custom to do so in the past, as Mr Hollings had interjected, there was no authority for such. Discussion as to whether any ballot papers had been passed by the Magistrates containing signatures of the Retrr ,ing Officer or his deputies and f' scrutineers would be left by the speaker until the Returning Officer was called. Mr Skerrett concluded his address, and Mr Pownall called —

Michae! Foley, Clerk of the Court, and Registrar of Electors at Master- ! ton, who stated that he held now in ! his custody all the ballot papers used at the poll. Herbert W. Pownall, law clerk, Masterton, said he was chief scrjti-nt-er at the poll for the License Party, also acting at the recount before the Magistrate. He knew of voting papers being allowed at the recount bearing the signatures of the scrutineers, and returning officers, across the face. There were some papers initialled only, but these were declared invalid. At the main booth witness could swear to two where two ballot papers were issued to one voter, one person being Mr Ewen Cameron. A deputy issued the paper, named Johnston, who, en being spoken to by witness said he had instructions from the Returning Officer to take back spoilt papers and issue another. The spoilt papers were taken and sealed up by the Returning Officer, and not seen by the scrutineersat the count or recount. During the totalling of results in the booth after the poll Messrs Dixon and McGregor were in the Drill Hall, not in the booth proper, but near the Returning Officer's table in the outer enclosure. Mr McGregor was President of the NoLicense League. Witness saw the procession of motor cars leave the Y.M.C.A. Rooms at 8.45 a.m. on election day, and go up towards the bridge, via Dixon street. There were ladies in the car, but witness could not say who was driving, and whether the cars carried anything. Witness saw the cars again in Queen street at 9 o'clock, when they proceeded down Queen street, coming from round Hall street corner. Witness was between the Ciub Hotel and the Post Office at this time. There were four cars in the procession, each bearing a pole with a streamer with the words "NoLicense" on it. Mr Pragnell and Mr Hollings were two of the drivers, witness understanding that Mr Hollings was a member of the NoLicense League. The committee rooms of the Mo-License Party were the Methodist Schoolroom. Witness saw the No-License placard in Hall street during the hours of polling, this being about 75 yards from the main booth. Witness described this placard and others posted around the town.

By Mr Hollings: Witness had no idea when the posters were put up. It was several weeks before the election. He saw none put up within three days of the election, and understood that the License Party's placards were also left posted up, one class of poster being a mock ballot paper bearing a sample continuance vote. Witness would also swear that the motor-car procession left the Y.M.C.A. at 8.45 a.m. Witness would refuse to believe any person who swore that the motor-car procession closed at 8.55. Witness was not aware whether Messrs Yarr and Porter, members of the License Party, were invited to be in the part of the booth where Messrs Dixon and McGregor were allowed during the compilation of the detailed results. Fully twenty papers bearing either the Returning Officer's name or his deputies or that of the two scrutineer? were allowed by the Magistrate

on the recount. Various papers were disallowed by the Magistrate where initials only were thereon, thisretluc- { ing the No-License majority. Wit- ■ ness saw Ewen Cameron receive his | two ballot papers, the second one being handed across from the deputy I to Cameron by witness. | Joseph Arthur, advertising agent, j said he posted up the No-License hoardings on November sth. They were of different designs and remained up until the day after the election, wVjen they were pasted over by other advertising matter. They were ordered to be put up by E. J. Chilton, a local sign-writer, who said Mr W. H. Cruicksbank had authorised them. They were to be posted up for 14 days, but nothing was said as to how long they were to remain up. By Mr Hollings: Mr Wise paid for the posting of the placards. . Witness also posted up an imitation ballot paptr for the License Party., showing how to vote for continuance, and these were on the boards on the day of the election.

John Joseph Kelliher,. law clerk, said he acted as the License Party's scrutineer at No. 2 compartment of tne main booth, and saw two extra ballot papers issued where the originals were spoilt. Witness signed several ballot papers on the invitation of the Returning Officer. Witness saw the procession of motor-cars just before 9 o'clock—about two minutes before, when the cars were in Hall street. Witness signed the declaration forms as a scrutineer without hearing any section of an Act read out to him. Mr James observed that as the declaration form contained a statement that the signatory had heard a section of the Act read out to him, the action of witness in signing without hearing this section read was improper, and it further showed, if such was the case, that there had been a grave misconduct on the of the person swearing in. James Bright, farmer, of Rongokokako, said he arrived at the Rongokokako booth at about two minutes to 9, and found the booth not open, nor had it opened by nearly 9.30, when witness left.

By Mr Hollings: Witness did not have a watch himself, but was told the time at the cheese factory, and he computed the time by the distance his home was from, the polling booth, and the time it took him to reach it. After leaving the bouth witness did not make a complaint. Mr Bradstock, the Returning Officer at Rongokokako, was a truthful man to witness' knowledge. Witness would swear that the door of the booth was not open at 0 o'clock. Frank D. Pell ing, employed by J. Cress, hotelkeeper, said he saw the motor-car procession at 9.5 o'clock in Albert street. He fixed the time by his watch, which usually kept good time. By Mr Hollings: Witness was employed by Mr Yarr on election day in connection with the carriage of voters to the poll. The Court at this stage adjourned till this morning.