THE LICENSE PETITION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3091, 13 January 1909, Page 5

THE LICENSE PETITION.

SECOND DAY'S SITTING. CONCLUSION OF PETITIONERS' CASE. j i PETITION DISMISSED WITH COSTS. RESPONDENTS NOT CALLED UPON. The hearing of the petition of the License Party ni Masterton against the result of the Local Option Poll at Masterton was continued yesterday at the Masterton Courthouse by Messrs V.'. P. James and A. D. Thomson and Dr. A. MeArthur, S.M's. At the commencement of proceedings Mr Pownall applied to have the voting papers that were rigned by the Returning Officers and scrutit:eer& ; sorted out by the Registrar of Elect- ■ ors during the Hearing of the case in urder to save time if these papers were fourd necessary Soy the purposes of evidence. After some argument it was decided to defer the matter in view of the fact that the papers were declared by the Registrar to be readily procurable. Continuing with the evidence for petitioners Mr Pownall called— James Braggins, nightwatchman, residing at Kuripur.i, who said 'he saw a procession of motor-cars pass his house with streamers attached on the mornincr of the election, some time after 9 o'clock. He did net fix the time by the clock, but by various other means. By Mr Rollings: The streamers bore the words "Vote for NoLicense." Witness rose and prepared the breakfast for his wife, and this occupied about half-an-hour, witness rising at half past eight. He did not look at the clock when the cars passed. By Mr Pownail: Witness was pretty accurate at calculating time j through constantly doing sd in connection with his duties. Joseph Petersen, dyer, and cleaner, deposed to seeing the procession pass his place in Albert street at about 9 o'clock. By Mr Hollings: Witness did not look at his clock at the time. Jessie Petersen, wife of the pre- ! vious deponent called, said she saw i'the procession of motor cars pass her I hcuse after 9 o'clock. ' She fixed the j' time by having had to call her brother at 9 o'clock. I By Mf Hollings; She called her i brother by the dining-ronm clock, though she wOuM not swear it was correct. By Mr Pownall: This cloek- usually . kept good time. I ! Jay Porter, barman at thd Club [ | Hotel, said that on the day of the election he saw the motor-car pi'> | cession in the morr.ing pass near j the hotel shortly after 9 o'clock. He j fixed the time by the hour the girls i had to come into the bar to comI mence their duties. j By Mr Hollings: Took particular notice of the hour, as it was his custom to every morning at that I time. Saw Mr John Cross in one car. I Arthur Haughey, plasterer ar:d contractor, said on the m"';:ing of the j | poll he was working ■. i a job next j j to the Empire Hotel; lie saw a'procession of motor cars pass southwards in Queen street at 8.50 a.m. The cars turned up into Hall street. Later, they returned by the same street, into Queen street, about on the stroke of nine; they then proceeded down Queen street. j By Mr Hollings: Two cars re- | turned into Queen street. It was then, ! as near as witness could judge, about I three minutes to nine Witness could : see the town clock and the cars both i from where he was working. He would net swear that on the two cars returning into Queen street they still [ carried streamers. j James McKenzie Miller, clerk, said he saw the procession of cars from the dining-room windows of Mrs Watson's boarding-house, it being then not later than ten minutes to nine. Benjamin Brodie, cordial manufacturer, said a No-license hoarding was posted near his property, and remained there during the day of the election. He did not see a License Party placard on that hoarding, though he did on other hoardings. 'John B. Emmett, clerk, said he saw the No-License poster in Hall street on the morning of the election. He also saw License Party posters on the hoardings. Houston M. Boddington, clerk, Deputy Returning Officer, said be issued two second papers to George Dennis and Mrs Dixon. He received printed instructions as to his duties, and was asked for the first of the two papers by the Returning Officer himself. Albert K. Johnston, clerk, a Deputy Returning Officer, said he issued two second papers to voters, in ea:h case returning the spoilt paper, after signing them and the scrutineers signing them. Mr H. W. Pownall objected, but later said he thought witness had done correctly. He had acted in a similar way at a previous election. By Mr Ostler: This was the third General Election witness had been a Deputy at, and at each election second papers were issued in similar cases. Arthur E. H. Styles, baker, said he voted at Lansdowne Booth. He was placed on the roll about two months before the election. He did not sign the application paper himself, but understood his wife did. He believed it was a canvasser named Ibbetson who got the paper signed. Witness had been about 79 diys in the elecJ torate. ! By Mr Hollings: Witness was on the Wellington Municipal Roll, but had never voted previously at a Gen- ' eral Election. He was entitled to be on the Wellington roll, though his name was not on it. Esther Styles, wife of tho previous witness, said her husband's application was not signed by himself so far as she knew. She had been told that the canvasser's name was Ibbetson, who had placed her name on the roll, but she could not swear to him now. She told him that she and her husband had been three weeks in the district. The canvasser did not see her sign the enrolment papers, as she took them into the dining-room. She was not asked to i declare that the signature was hers. The name of her husband and herself appeared on the New Plymouth roll I of 1908. 1 Laura Emily Rosyth, married woman residing in South road, said she voted at the Licensing Poll. Mr

Ibbetson enrolled her name after she had been in the electorate a month all but two clays. She was previously on the Wairarapa roll, and told the canvasser ao, and how long she bad resided in the district. 1 Robert R. Owen, farmer of Alfredton, Deputy Returning Officer at Pori booth, said a lady voter, Mrs Mary Howard came into the booth with a Mr McDonald, who was not an official. Mr McDonald took hold of Mrs Howard's paper, and on witness remonstrating he said "I was only telling her to strike out the top line." Afterwards on further remonstration, Mr McDonald became insolent, aiT-i told Mrs Howard not to take any notice of witness. Deponent showed witness his instructions and drew attention to them outside the booth. McDonald did not see the paper after the lady voted. , By Mr Hoilings: The lady was elderly, and could not see to write without glasses. He could not say if she and McDonald were friendly. The latter did not go into the private voting compartment. Witness did not later ask witness to remain in the booth, and also did not order McDorald out. Mrs Howard did not complain about the matter. Alice S. Pascoe, residing at Lansdowne, said she voted at Lansdowne Booth. She at first thought she made an error but found she had nor, and her paper was put in the ballot box. She applied for another ballot pap<r, but did not get it, the Deputy looking at the one issued to her, before refusing. She thought the Deputy was Mr Donaldson. By Mr Hollings: Witness was satisfied that she Had voted as she had intended to vote, and had no complaint to make. Mr Skerrett intimated that subject to the inspection of spoilt and illiterate ballot papers and a scrutiny of the votes, if necessary, he closed his case. At this stage the Court adjourned to allow the Bench to discuss the evidence adduced in support of the petition. Mr James, on resuming, said that the Bench had come to a decision on the evidence submitted. Dealing sereatim with the allegations contained in the petition, His Worship said that as far as that alleging that all who voted were not qualified voters except petitioners was concerned the only evidence was that of Mrs Rosyth and the two Styles'. No evidence, bf en adduced to slipport the flto.»Gi ls in rrfCrenco to absentee votes. The evidence adduced to support the clause dealing' with the motorcar demonstration was riot sufficient in the Court's opinion to maintain the allegation, None of the witnesses could say definitely as to the hour at which they saw the procession afier 9 o'clock, and if the cars had been out after nine it must have been only a few minutes,' though it might probably be shown that the procession had conelurle'a* before nine. Coming to the question of the posters contained on the hoardings, the bench thought that as the posters had been up for some time previous to election day their effect would have been exhausted, and in any case both sides had been in equal fauP, in this respect. The fact that Messrs McGregor and Dixon had been admitted to the Drill Hall Booth after the poll had closed was not a serious matter, although it might have been wise for the Returning Officer to keep out all but the officials sworn to secrecy. The Court considered that the issue of second ballot papers in place of spoilt ones was a ju3tifiable proceeding, and they did not consider that because the Returning Officer and the scrutineers signed these papers, that they should be invalidated. The scrutineers were entitled to see the paper in any case, and nothing to call for the invalidating of the papers occurred by the scrutineers signing them. Apparently a breach had been committed by Mr Donaldson at Lansdowne, but it was one which perhaps that official could explain in evidence if he desired to. No evidence had been called to support the allegation that a placard had been set up at Mangamahoe Booth, which Mr Eli Smith had ordered to be removed. The evidence regarding Pori Booth so far disclosed that a breach had been committed by Mr McDonald, who, too, could give an explanation in evidence if he desired. Respecting the evidence of Mr Bright, that the Rongokokako Booth was not opened until 9.30, in that case Mr Bradstock, the Returning Officer, could, if he desired, tender an explanation in evidence. Dealing with the question of whether the Court had power to go behind the roll and disallow the votes of persons not properly placed thereon, the Bench considered it possessed that power, and that as Mrs Rosyth and the two Styles' were not properly on the roll it had power to invalidate their votes, but so far as this question went it now only resolved itself into whether these votes being disallowed affected the result. The petition was practically dismissed, but those persons against whom breaches were alleged could give evidence in rebuttal.

Mr Rollings said he was pleased at the result of the Bench's contentions, and at first proposed to call several witnesses to give rebutting evidence, but finally decided not to do so. Counsel mentioned that the canvasser, Ibbetson, had been already prosecuted and fined for breaches similar to those alleged, only nominal punishment being meted out, as Ibbetson had been the first to give the information respecting the breaches. Dr. McArthur said that the Court had as a matter of course to report the breaches. It seemed as though Ibbetson had gone about with enrolment forms aleady signed, and partly filled in. Mr Boilings said that he would not occuny the Court's time in hearing rebuttal evidence, and if any prosecutions were taken the defendants could then explain. Mr Rollings then moved for costs. Mr Skerrett asked that they be made £2O, the amount iixad by the Court as security. Mr Rollings said respondents had been put to great expense and trouble in connection with the petition and had subpoenaed numerous witnesses. He asked the Bench to follow the liwercargill case, where the Court decided it could award costs on the Supreme Court method. Costs were finally fixed at twenty guineas, counsel's fees, Court costs, witnesses expenses, typists fees and advertising charges. The Court then dissolved.