LOCAL OPTION POLL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3095, 19 January 1909, Page 5

LOCAL OPTION POLL.

THE HUTT ENQUIRY. The enquiry into the Hutt * Licensing Poll was resumed yesterday morning beloro Dr A. M'Arthur, Messrs W. G. Riddcll and W.. P. James, Stipendiary Magistrate.-'.

Petitioners called two further witnesses in terms of leave granted by the court en Saturday, i Stuart »Mensies, postmaster at i Silversiream, who acted as deputy[returning officer there, said that a I Mrs May Milligau, who formerly lived at Uppar Hutt, voted at Silver-, stream.

In respe;t of thti Case of Cameron, Mr Atkinson stated that he had had-a survey made, and it was found that the residence to which the man moved tfh April 4tb, 1908, was outside the Hutt electorate. Mr Skerrett than resumed his address foi' the' respondents at the point where it was interrupted by the adjournment on Saturday. He asked the Court not to call upon him for an answer to parargaph 21, alleging that the returning officer had illegally prevented a scrutineer from being present at the recount. Mr Mnthes had taken the stand he did in terms of an opinion by the law officers of the Crown. Although the No-License party was not represented by a scrutineer it had Rev. Mr Williams present as a pell clerk, and he exercised all the privileges a scrutineer might. The Law Office held that the clauses of the Act related only to scrutineers at the poll and not at the recount. Further, there had been a statutory recount before Dr M'Arthur. The paragraph alleging that the returning officer had been seen conning the roll in the Empire Hotel with the wife of the licensee was singularly lacking in good taste, and not a scrap of evidence had been adduced in support of it. Neither had a word of apology been offered. The next parargaph alleging that the returning officer had refused prominent supporters of No-License to inspect the roll was without foundation. The duties of the Registrar of Electors (the officer concerned) were distinct from those of'the returning officer. In point of fact, however, there was nothing to support the charge. Mr Skerrett said that there were 1,998 papers before the wind blew, and 1,997 afterwards, while the paper which was found completed the total. The discrepancy in the first case could be accounted for by the fact that the machine used in the count may not have made an impression with the stamp, but may have recorded an additional numeral on the machine-registered, total. Counsel proceeded to deal with 12 minor allegations under clause 24 of the petition. There was no evidence that the papers could have been tampered with during the progress of the count. Neither was there any evidence that the count proceeded while the returning officer was absent for lunch. In any case it did not matter. Again there was no that the returning officer alio" i liquor to be brought into the i...il during the count. One would imagine that the whole world was to fall because some refreshment, apparently of an alcoholic nature, was partaken of. There was no suggestion of any misconduct whatever. Counsel contended that there was no evidence that a ballot paper had been tampered with. Any slight mistakes had been corrected at the magisterial recount. Counsel proceeded to - deal with illegal practices at elections — bribery or treating. A vast variety of things could be done at a licensing poll which could not /be done at an electoral poll. Sections 33 to 36 of the Legislature Act defined and limited the jurisdiction of this court, which had not the jurisdiction of an electoral court. Counsel, apart from tne legal objections, submitted that there was no satisfactory proof of treating on the day of the election. Wbitemau could not be identified with the License party; neither could Edwards. Mr Skerrett argued that there was no difference between a scrutineer having a glass of tea or beer at a poll. There was no evidence that the Trade had any connection with a barrel of beer said to be placed in a room at the Town Hall, Lower Hutt. It could be said that the beer was there for those people who were working for the License party. In regard to the Provincial Hotel at Upper Hutt, the evidence was that the bar was closed. Of course, visitors were at the hotel during the day. Nothing had been adduced to show that the stable at the Upper Hutt (where a Parrel of beer was placed) was connected with the Provincial Hotel. There was nothing to answer on the allegation that an elector had been offered £5 for his voto by one Harley, a brewer. No evidence had been called to show that the person supposed to have been addressed was a elector, or that the person said to have been addressed heard the observation.

Counsel for petitioners replied at length. He emphasised that the result of the poll was hanging on a very small margin, and the weight to be attached to the irregularities was cumulative. Mrs Allender lost her vote by reason of duties imposed on the Registrar which were not carried out. Mrs Collett's case, was that of a woman having her maiden name struck off the roll, and the Registrar neglected to substitute her name by marriage. It was not to be suggested that because provision was made for clerical errors, where clerical errors were committed, there was to be no remedy. Section 35 (e) ot the Licensing Act did not limit the court's jurisdiction to enquiry into offences. "Irregularity" might be defined as a departure from order or method. The Local Elections Act made general provision for the voiding of a poll i in consequence of irregularities and specific provision for the punishment of wilful irregularities. The two sections supplied the key to the ! view that was to be taken of an irregularity within the meaning of the statute. Was the people's poll not to be protected from the results of nsgligence or misadventure? Counsel went on to say that ballot-papers might be lost quite innocently. There would be no criminal liability, but it might turn the result of an election.—"Post." The hearing will be resumed tomorrow.