LOCAL OPTION POLL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3096, 20 January 1909, Page 5

LOCAL OPTION POLL.

THE HUTT ENQUIRY. 4 WHAT RESPONDENTS HAVE TO ANSWER. The enquiry into the Hutt Local Option poll was resumed yesterday afternoon before Dr A. M'Arthur and Mr W. P. James, Stipendiary Magistrates, at the Oddfellows' Hall, Petone. Dr M'Arthur intimated that Mr W. G. Iliddell, the other member of the court, had been seized with illness overnight, and had had several fainting fits. He was now, however, recovering, and it was hoped, after the court had delivered its statement of the paragraphs which were to be answered by re- ! spondents, to proceed with the case i to-day. The court, Dr M'Arthur said —in answer to Mr Skerrett's request that he be not called upon to reply to certain allegations—was guided in the decisions on the various paragraphs by the judgment of the court (Brett,Archibald, and Denham, J.J.) in Woodward v. Sarsons, and by the judgment of Kennedy and Darling, J.J. in the Islington Division case decided in 1902, which he read. The chairman of the Bench then proceeded to deal with the allegations in the petition. Paragraphs 1 to 7, inclusive, his Worship said were introductory and required n<> answer, 8 was a general statement, particulars of which were set out in subsequent paragraphs. Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 (the cases of MrsAllender, Daisy Elsie Collett, and Curtis), who allegedly failed to send in a signed claim for enrolment) had. reference to matters connected with the preparation of the rolls, and the court was of opinion that its jurisdiction was confined to an enquiry f as to the conduct of the poll or any person thereat. Paragraph 12 was abandoned. Paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 alleged impropriety in official appointment by the returning officer, such as alleged partisans of the trade. "We are of opinion,'' his Worship said, "that there is no evidence to' prove that the persons referred to in these paragraphs were improperly appointed to act in the different polling 1 booths. Tha presumption is that they were properly' appointed, and acted in pursuance of their appointment." Paragraph 16 alleged that the officials had left the booths on divera occasions during the poll. The allegation was dropped so far as the deputies were concerned, and the court held that the allegation was not applicable to the returning officer. In regard to parargaph 17, the court held that there was no evidence that the returning officer during the course of the poll habitually spoke to voters in the principal booth. Paragraphs 18 and 19 concerned the Holding of the ballot-papers by different deputies over-night, and their collection by the man Webb next day. "We are of opinion," his Worship said, "that although there may have been an irregularity l.erein, yet the Act was substantially complied with. It was not an irrpgularity affecting the result of the poll. As a matter of facl, it did not affect the result of the poll at all, and hence we think no answer is required." Paragraph 20 alleged failure to secure the sscrecy of the ballot at specified booths. "We consider," his Worship continued, "that there was an irregularity, here, but that it did not affect the secrery of the ballot nor the result of the poli. In our opinion, in all polling-booths there should be proper compartments set aside for voters." Paragraph 21 referred to the returning officer's refusal to allow a scrutineer of the No-License party to be present at the official count of the I votes. The court could not see that petit'oner had any cause for complaint. The returning officer appeared to have acted in a bona fide manner, and the evidence disclosed the fact that the Rev. Mr Williams had virtually all the power of e scrutineer. In any event, there was nothing to affect the result of the poll.

On paragraph 22 no evidence was offered, and paragraph 23 (refusal to allow No-License supporters to inspect the roll) was covered by the court's reply to paragraphs 9, 10, and 11. >To paragraph 24 (alleged gross irregularity at the official count) the court would like to hear tha respondents answer. Paragraph 25 (dual voting) had been abandoned. Paragraphs 26, 27, and 28 {alleged personation, voting by persons outside the district and failure to supply persona who spoilt their ballot papers with new ballot papers) would require an answer. No evidence had bean offered on paragraphs 29 to 33 inclusive. Paragraphs 34 and 35 (alleging the display of an effigy on a motor-car of a man holding up a pot of beer and the word "Liberty" printed thereon, the driving of the motor car through the electorate on the day of the poll, and the alleged driving of a cart with a tank and the word "Beer'' written thereon through Petone on polling would have to be answered. Paragraph 36 was dropped. Paragraphs 37 to 44 inclusive (all alleging illegal disposal of liquor on the day of the poll in different parts of the electorate) would require an answer. Paragraphs 45 and 46 (alleging free beer at Epuni booth and the offer of £5 to an elector for his vote) \vera dropped. ■His Worship concluded the court's answer (of which the foregoing is a fairly full summary) by stating that respondents would therefore be called upon to answer paragraphs 24, 26 to 28, 34, 35, and 37 to 44.—"Post."