ELECTION VOID.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20562, 2 June 1932, Page 16

ELECTION VOID.

WAIPARA COUNTY POLLS. MAGISTRATE'S DECISION. NEGLIGENCE OF RETURNING OFFICER. Stating that there were glaring irregularities in the conduct of the recent elections for the Waikari and Hurunui seats on the Waipara County Council, due to the negligence and laxity of the returning officer (Mr W. T. Lindsay), the Magistrate (Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M.) yesterday declared the elections/ null and void, after conducting arj enquiry at the Courthouse at Amberlcy. The enquiry was instituted by a petition lodged by the two candidates who were declared unsuccessful on the final count for the two ridings on May 12th. The action taken by the petitioners was mainly due to the discrepancy between the totals for the candidates based on figures returned by the deputyreturning officer at the Hawarden booth on May 11th, and the returning officer after the official count on the following night. On the original count the peti tioners, R. I. Black and A. Cowie, were icturncd for the Waikari and Hurunui ridings respectively, and on the final count thev were unsuccessful.

After evidence had been called by the petitioners yesterday the Magistrate adjourned the hearing until he had supervised a recount and scrutiny of the votes. When the Court resumed he delivered his judgment as follows:—• "Since the Court sat iu the morning, together with counsel for the two sides, I have had a recount of the votes and a scrutiny of a large number," said Mr Lawry. "The result of the scrutiny disclosed beyond question that a number of papers have been used in the recount of the poll which were not issued to voters either by the returning officer or the deputy-returning officer. In one case it was found that more than one paper was issued with the same consecutive number, and in another case one paper was not found in the scrutiny, notwithstanding the fact that thero was a full number of papers in the scrutiny issued by the deputy-returning officer, one having gone astray. One paper was substituted by someone for this.

Large Number of Irregularities. "There have been a large number of irregularities in many cases, not only at Hawardcn but at other booths. Papers have been issued without the deputyreturning officer's mark on them and ia a large number of cases counterfoils of the voting papers have not been in-. itialled by the deputy. In some instances these had no booth stamp on them. In several cases it has been definitely proved, that, between the taking of the poll and the final recount, papers were not scaled by the deputy-re-turning officer or the returning officer. The irregularities have been so great and numerous and the evidence of the inclusion of some voting papers not properly issued is so grave as to mako it imperative for rne to declare the, election void. "On the question of costs the Act provides that either party may be made liable, but in this case I am satisfied that neither the petitioners nor the respondents have been responsible for the irregularities. The irregularities wero due to the negligence and laxity of the returning officer. I think he is responsible for the acts of his deputies, but apart from that, his own act in leaving the ballot papers, on his own admission, in a room without cheeking them to see if they were sealed by the deputies, and the fact that unsealed papers were received, goes to show that this is one way in which facilities for the manipulation of papers had been given. Costs Against Returning Officer. "At the present time I do not find it necessary to make any suggestion or finding as to the person by whom these manipulations were made, but it is quite clear that it was facilitated by the action of the returning officer. The Act provides that he may be liable for the costs of the hearing as he gave evidence and comes within the section relating to costs. He is liable not only for the costs of the enquiry but for the costs of petitioners and respondents. There will be £lO 10s for the respondents and £ls 15s for petitioners, plus 15s disbursements, and £2 2s for the taking of notes 'of the evidence. The \ fixing of the date for the next election is entirely a matter of arrangement by the local authority. All documents and ■ voting papers will be retained by the Court."

The election was held- on May 11th, when Robert Ireland Black and Allan Thomas Allan were candidates for the Waikari Riding and Alexander Cowie and Herbert Edward Fincham for the Hurunui Riding.

Provisional Announcement of Results. The petition set out that on the evening of the election a provisional announcement was made as follows: Waikari Biding— Black: 111 votes. Allan: 102 votes. Hurunui Biding— , . Cowie: 97 votes. Finekam: 89 votes. The voting at ■ the Hawarden booth for these candidates was announced by •the deputy returning officer as follows: Waikari Biding— Black: 26 votes. Allan: 7 votes. Total: 33 votes. Htfrunui Biding— Cowie: 30 votes. Fincham: 46 vote. 1 -.. Total: 76- votes. These were the only votes the deputy returning officer had to count. It was alleged that certain irregularities occurred in the conduct of the poU between the counting of these votes a: the Hawardeu booth on May 11th and the counting on May 12th, in that th.j ballot papers were not sealed as required by the Local Elections and Polls Act and were opened without tha breaking of any seahj at the commencement of the official count. Unauthorised Persons Alleged to foe Present. It was further alleged that there were present, when the serutiny of the electoral rolls took place on May 12th, certain persons who were not scrutineers for any of the candidates or assistants of the returning officer. This presence was Contrary to :t section of the Act. It was stated that' after the scrutiny of the roll* and ikes official oouat had

taken place the final result of the poll was duly announced as follows: — Waikari Biding — Black: 105 votes. Allan: 10S votes. Hurunui Biding— Cowie: 93 vetes. Fincham: 96 votes. The counting of the votes cast at the Hawarden booth showed the following results: — Waikari RidingBlack: 20 votes. Allan: 13 votes. Hurunui Riding— Cowie: 23 votes. Fincham: 53 votes. The candidates Black a-rid Cowie had suffered a loss of six and seven votes respectively at this polling booth between the'first and second counts. The further difference in the total figures of the candidate Cowie -syas accounted for bv his receiving three additional declaration votes cast in Christchurch. Counsel said that the petitioners had been informed by electors who voted at the Hawarden booth that the total of 26 votes originally recorded for the candidate Black represented the votes that were in fact cast, and were also informed that the deputy returning officer at the booth had counted and checked carefully the votes cast for Black and Cowie. On the evening of May 12th, during the official count, all the'unused voting papers were not produced to the scrutineer for the candidates and there was therefore no proper check of them kept. These unused papers, with the exception of two bundles of 25 each, were destroyed on May 14th. The petitioners were not aware what person or persons had access to the voting papers and were unable now to have checked the unused voting papers because of their destruction.

*Sense of Public Duty. Acting under a, sense of public duty they alleged that a recount and scrutiny of the recorded votes was desirable, and that a Magisterial recount and an enquiry were necessary. It was thus asked that in the course of such enquiry a recount and scrutiny of all the voting papers used at the election beheld and also a scrutiny of all electoral rolls, counterfoils, unused voting papers available, and other documents. It was asked that Black and Cowie r-hould be declared elected or that the elections in the ridings should be declared void. Counsel said that the circumstances of the case were, to say the least, peculiar. The only mistakes in the counting must have been at the Ilawarden booth, the differences in the totals after the two counts being six in one case and seven in the other. The counting of the deputy-returning officer, owing to r.oine strange sequence of errors, might possibly be explained, although he had definitely cheeked the votes carefully, and had the matter rested there nothing more would have come of it. But there were further irregularities and also the evidence of the electors who declared lhat they had acted in accordance witli the original count. The voting papers were not sealed lietween the counts —an imperative section of the Act—and on those grounds alone the Court should declare the election void.

In the Act of 1925 there was no provision made for the checking of papers and for their retention after the count. This was necessary, and was really an important part of the Parliamentary eloctions. The count on May 12th was therefore not a true recount in the Plnek-Allan and Oowie-Fincham elections. The atmosphere by that time was somewhat tense rind no rount of the used papers was made. Deputy-Officer's Evidence. Oscar Twcntyman James, a Waipara County Council employee. who was deputy-returning officer at, the Hawarden booth on May 11th, said that he did not know how many books of voting papers he received for the election. He had a rubber stamp with the word "Waipara" on it, and rolls. Thero wero no scrutineers present. Witness wag in charge of the booth all day. He put the consecutive numbers on the butts and the voting papers; He, moistened the gum on the papers and stuck them down. Witness put his initials on ths counterfoils and stamped .them and the papers across the perforation. Once or twice he tore the papers, but stamped them by holding the butts and papers in position. These mistakes wero made at various times of the day when he was a little bustled. The 1 ooth was closed as six < 'clock, and witness proceeded with his count. He locked the door and there was nobody else present. Witness put the papers for the two ridings apart and then .divided them into candidates. He had the papers in separate heaps when he finished. Cowic.'s and Fincham 's heaps were at one end of the table and Black's and Allan's at the* other. Witness counted the papers at least twice. Black had 26 votes and Allan 7, Cowie 30 and Fincham 46. He put up a notice to this effect outside the booth. Witness took about half an hour to count the votes, which were 109 in all. He replaced all the papers, used nnd unused, the butts, roll, and stamp in the ballot box. Each candidate's papers were wrapped up separately in parcels. They wero not sealed or tied up with string.

Papers Not Wrapped Up. Counsel: What instructions did- you have about wrapping them up? Witness: I had instructions to seaJ them. The Magistrate: Were you supplied with sealing-wax •* Witness: No. Witness said that the unused voting papers and the remainder of the materials were bundled into the box loosely. He did not notify the returning officer of the result until he saw him personally at Waikari, and told him. Witness left the box in the care of Mr Lindsay, the returning officer. Witness, on counsel's instruction, gave samples of his handwriting and his figures. - In reply to counsel for respondents, witness said that each of his counts gave the same result. If there were three counts the matter was checked, twice. The voting papers were made up in books of 25. Scrutineer's Evidence. Harry Melville Carr, a farmer, of Waikari, a scrutineer appointed for the election by Mr Black, said he was in attendance at the Waikari booth when the returns from the outside booths came in on the evening of May 11th. The final return for that evening was: Black 111, Allan 102, Cowio 97, Fincharn 89. The Hawarden booth returns were: Black 26, Allan 7, Cowie 30, Fincham 46. Witness was present when James brought his box into the polling booth. It was put on the table and witness did not know whether the box was locked and he did not see it opened. Lindsay read the numbers out and James said they were correct. Witness was also present at the official count the next evening. In the polling booth the following were present: Lindsay (the returning officer), Kellaway (the assistant county clerk), Wright (Cowic's scrutineer), and Saundereock, besides witness himself. The polling boxes were brought in and they were opened. The votes were lifted out of the boxes and placed on the table. Some had brown paper wrapped around them, but witness did not remember any string or seals. All handled the papers in order to sort them. First the papers were divided into colours —representing ridings—and then into candidate's heaps. Three votes came in from Christchurch, each of these being for Cowie. The only booth with a discrepancy was Hawarden. The unused papers were pro-

duced for examination by the scrutineers, except some locked in the safe. Witness asked for the Waikari riding rolls, and, on examination, found no plural voting had taken place. Lindsay asked witness if he was satisfied with the result, and witness replied: As the votes now stand. In reply to counsel for respondents, witness said ho was quite satisfied that the votes, as counted on that occasion, had been totalled up correctly. There were 213 votes altogether. The only error that could have occurred outside witness's view must have related to the papers in the safe. Witness did not check the papers in the safe, as he was not asked to do so by the returning officer. Scrutineer not Sworn In. William Thomas Lindsay, Waipara, county clerk, who acted as returning officer in the election, gave formal evidence. In reply to counsel ho said that Saundercock had been appointed as a scrutineer by Allan over the telephone, but that he had not been sworn in. The votes from the Hawarden booth were received from James on the evening of May 11th, and had been locked in the strong-room the following morning. They had femained there all day, and were proiduced with the others in the evening for the official count. Witness conducted the count and asked the scrutineers if they were satisfied. They had signified their satisfaction, and agreed that the count was correct. Nobody could have had access to the ballot box | in the strong-room. If it had been tampered with it must have been while it was in his room on the night of May llth. The Magistrate said that in view of tho fact that there were so many papers unsealed there must bo a recount, and, if necessary, a scrutiny. The Court adjourned for that purpose. Tlus recount and scrutiny were begun in tne early afternoon and lasted for three hours, the Magistrate and counsel for tho petitioners and respondents conducting the enquiry. The Court resumed late in the day, and tho Magistrate gave his decision. The case aroused much interest in the district, and the Amberley Courthouse was full yesterday. The crowd waited patiently outside for the whole afternoon and returned to hear the decision.