LOWER HUTT ELECTIONS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22424, 10 June 1938, Page 12

LOWER HUTT ELECTIONS

Magisterial Inquiry

Concluded

ALL PETITIONS DISMISSED Irregularity Held To Be Not Proved (PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, June 9. Petitions brought seeking to have the recent Lower Hutt mayoral and council elections declared void were dismissed by Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., today, at the conclusion of a hearing lasting three days into the conduct of the elections. Costs totalling £4O 18s were allowed the respondents, who were the returning officer, Mr B. S. Knox, the Mayor, Mr J. W. Andrews, and the six successful Citizens’ councillors in the recent elections. There were several petitioners among whom, according to the evidence, were the mother of an unsuccessful Labour candidate, the secretary of a trade union, the chairman of the Hutt branch of the Labour Party, the president of a trade union, and the secretary of the Hutt branch of the Labour Party. In dismissing the petitions, the Magistrate .said he could not find in all the evidence any particular allegation supported to the extent of showing that the result of the elections was affected. He had looked carefully to see if any witness would be produced with some definite statement, showing that there had been effect on the council election. The evidence of none who complained of lack of time, or inability to get a vote, came up to establishing sufficient proof to hold the election void and put the borough to the expense of an election. He said this not so much on the ground of expense, which would naturally follow a fresh election, but on the point that before an election could be upset the evidence must be clear and convincing. Reasons For Not Voting The witnesses, in every case, had refrained from voting for some personal reason, rather than from any irregularity, and in the cases of those who claimed they were refused declaration votes, the evidence was insufficient to show that they had applied to the proper official. One of these persons may have been sufficient to have had a, material effect on the election of councillors, where but one vote separated the last successful candidate and the highest polling unsuccessful one. Nothing had been done which could have in any way affected the •mayoral election, said the Magistrate. One vote might have affected the council; but he could not hold that any one such vote was proved to be disallowed. Dealing with the allegation that electors were prevented from voting because of an inadequate number of polling places, the Magistrate said that where an act of Parliament provided for a minimum number, it could not be said that the returning officer was remiss in providing for a number in excess of this. There were 10,000 on the roll. The act stipulated one place to every 2000. Five or six would have complied with the law. There were 14 provided, more than double the act required. It might be that more voted in proportion to the roll than previously, but the number of polling places was consistent with the previous history of the election. The long delays alleged were not because of any irregularity in the poll, but because of the large number who went to vote at special times, particularly between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. The fact that so many came at one lime was not irregular, and it would be absurd to suggest that there should be enough polling places to cope with all electors coming at one time. In no case was it proved that negligence in the supply of voting papers lay in the hands of the returning officer or his deputies. Number In a Booth As to the allegation that more than six, as provided by the act, were allowed in the booth at one time, it was difficult to allow the petitioners to blow hot and cold over this. It they complained of this,. it meant, , u the act had been strictly complied with, that a greater number would have been put to inconvenience. It was not suggested that having more than six in a booth at any time affected the election, or that it caused any uneasiness or disturbed the secrecy of the ballot. It vias all done to expedite, rather than to hinder. There was also no suggestion that any failure to fold over and secure the ballot papers affected the result of the elections, or induced persons to refrain from voting on that account. That the river board votes were counted before the close of the poll for the council and mayoralty had no bearing, as the river board voting closed an hour before, and this election was a separate one. As to the general allegation of negligence, inefficiency, and incompetence in respect of alleged failure to make adequate provision for seven elections, if it were intended to mean, that cer-. tain elections were held in one place, and one polling booth, it might have some right to be in the petition, but considering that- these other elections had nothing to do with the two at issue, and were separate and apart in every way, he could not see that any irregularity could be suggested. There was nothings to suggest that the wrong number of papers had eventually been issued to any elector, and no one had come forward and said he was entitled to more votes than he was given papers. Checking of Rolls The allegation of careless checking of rolls did not come within the meaning of irregularity. As to the river board voting papers becoming exhausted, this had nothing to do with the council and mayoral elections, in which there was no suggestion of a shortage of papers. There was some evidence as to finding voting papers in a ballot box the next day, but this went only so far as to state that one of these papers was for the mayoralty. There was nothing to say that the others related to any particular election whatever. They were evidently all accounted for in the official count. As to the periods of up

to an hour taken to issue the papers, this occurred in one or two instances, and had more application to tjie time it took to get the papers than to the actual voting. ,