THE HUTT HOTELS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 410, 20 January 1909, Page 9

THE HUTT HOTELS.

ALLEGATIONS TO BE ANSWERED, - •■.;■> questions qjvijAw.- •-.•■• ;. The-inquiry into tho Hutt lpcaT option po was resumed yesterday' afternoon bofprq D\ A, M<Arthur,,S.M,, and.Mr. W- Jamp. 5.M. -, ' ; .':...- : : ■ -i'.' ■ .'•■ . .; . -.■'.."■■ '■■■■■' ■. ■'■■-.' ■ .! 'Petitioners-were 1 represented by Mr. A' ; E Atkinson, and Mr/ Br H. : Ostler, and Mr. C P. Slcerrett, K.C., Mr, A, W.,Bl«ir, ?nd..Mi W; J. Cracroft Wilson appearocl :for- th respondents. ... . .; -.■ : : • - '■"•■"":■ ' ;'Dr. M'Arthur stated' that he regretted :t ?ay that Mr. .Riddejl'had been taken serious!; jll on the,.-previous evening,, and had. pa'ssei a yeryj.bad night,.during which he had'severs fainting-fits, and he could: not leave tin house," They'could nqt, gp on without.him and, would have to. adjourn until this' after noon, .when it was hoped that' Mr. .'Riddel would bo able to te .present. -■ -'.-.../ -.j- In stating the.pajagrajihs which- the re fP« on(i l e , nts would have ..to answer, Dr tt.Arthur.said -that the. Court.was guided ir ;he decisions on the-various paragraphs bj the judgment of tho Court /(Brett, Irohibald and penhani,, J.J.) in Wpp.dwarcl v, Sarspns: and •by the judgment of Kennedy and Dari 1 the .Islington division case.decided mWV, which, he read. HisWorshir outlined;-/the -deoision in- the length,; particularly that' portion : oi the judgment concerning the point'-as -to Whether the. "constituency had a fair and ree opportunity of eleoting the candidate .ho majority might prefer.". This, would ha/e been se if a paajprity. of -the electors, had been jrevented. from recording their vp'tes eff-'c-tively according to-their own preference b'v general ■ corruptienj or general intimidation, qrby'-'beiug prevented Freni, voting by want qf the -jnacliinery. necessary fer sqvqtlng, as big polling statipns being : demolished./'" or ".not opened, or by other means'"of voting not being stpplied;-pr'supplied with such■■ errer? as-to reiuler the voting by means of thejii vqid, or by other-such aots rir-- mishaps'." The tribunal, tho; judgment 'emphasised,■■ should ha_. satisfied. that'''a- Majority of* the elepi-ors might fljiye been'prevented 'from electing the oandidato-thfiy preferred, • If' such had not >cen -the■■• caste,. -the existence of such misiaps would not entitle the tribunal.te declare ie election vojd ,hy t,he opmmqn law pf: par. , "' Qn the point as tp whether, the election was ponducted ''on the subsiding la.ws,": the. judgement emphasised that it was not eneugh to 'jay that great "mistakes were-made, in carrying o.ut the eleptipn;.under those. laws; 'it • was necessary to,be able;'to : say, that cither wilfully 'or erroneously, tho election, was not parried, out.under> these/laws, . hut -under, some other method, If-in the opinion of the tribunal , the election was substantiallyan. election: by. ballot, "then no mistake ,c'r misconduct, however great, in tho use of trio machinery .of ';the Bijlqt >" Act,, .cqujd /justify .the tribunal in declaring the' eleptipn void!'■ 'by.the common law-of;par,": / '■'■"..''•'.-- -■'In the Islington Division qase, tho Bepch ; held that an election might noi.to bo held void by reasons of transgressions,of the law; committed without any corrupt, motive by ißeturning; Officer or his subordinates in ihe condufit of the election, where, |he Court wsb satisfied that the eleptipn \wss, ;ing .those transgressions, »n election really, conducted under the. eiist--5 {election'' law,' and; that' the' result of the election—the succcsi of. one.:.candidate ovijr p,nqther—was- not ,>T|d/- cquld' npV..h»Tg bpeii affected by those trj(nsgresßiqns. . If, pn'the" other hand, the Courtwas'.'of, qpinion.tHat tho

.transgressions piay.have,affected the,,result ( it was' affirmed that the.electioh.must be. .olared void.' / '•■■., ~./.' // ' . " ; .[After this'exposition-of the law the-chaii\ .man. of Ae. Bench- proceeded itO; deal, with the/allegations/in tlie .petition, /,. ■■'.. ... ,-.-;• PRragrjphs.'i. tq 7, inclusive,, his■ Worship and'; required/' no answer,-/S'/TEaßr.'R- general/statement, piir'ticulars- pf.-whioliiiWer.e'/set put .in'.subsequent •pragraph37;vj:''>, ] f Jt'i ;c -,i/; ; n" : :,r w,■--■■■; :," ■;.;, Paragraphs, .9, ,10, ivtid ...11 : (the;;cases. of Mrs,['Allender.,i:D,ai9y.. i ElsiQ Cpllett, ,and, Cur the cqmpijfttipn pf.-ithe.-irplls,? and-:the Court was of opinion that/ Jts jurisdiction was -con-iinedito.anr-ir»quiry as.to thp/cpndupt of.the rinll.:nr. »nv.T»ftrKnh..+,hArßflt: ' •■>.:' . ■ / i

;.-'; Paragraph ; -12vwas abandoned. ■.' ■■■■ \ ;.'■:.- '(i ParasriiphsvlSi; ;14,and-;15 .(.-alleged .ippro-:pi'ietyMn;-'-official appointments, by ithe return-. ,ing officnr;' such as alleged partisans of the Tjrade,! , "We. are of opinion;" his Worship apid, '.:.!!that, there: is no' , .- evidence -. to. prove■'■'th'atHthe referred to in these Paragraphs were improperly: appointed to.'act.in the different •polling- -booths; The.presumption ;.is-that they, were properly appointed, and < acted- in pursuaripe -of their- appoint, ."ment.'J-■.■■•.'■...>•■.•■..■ ;::;■■■■■-.!•■.■, "■ .-:■■■■ ; ■ ,''.' ; V- '■ .. ■.',; Paragraph -16 alleged that the officials had left the ...booths on diver? occasions, during -.the poH. , The allegation was dropped/ so'far as the deputies were poncErned, and the Court-held, that the allegation -was- not'ap- : pjicabifj'tq'the: returning'oflicer.. . ; .■'■■:ln ■■■.regard to Paragraph 17, the Court held' that 'here was no evidence, that the retufjfc. jijg'officer during the'course of the poll hubitually'spplfe to! voters in the principal bootli. . ja.ragrnphslß.arid 19 Qpncerned'the holding of tjho ballot-papers by different .deputies over-night, arid their collection by: the iiiari Webb next day." "Wβ are- of opinion,' , , his Worship ;said,: "thst although there inay have ''b«>,a an. irregularity herein,, yet -the. ■Act -wae ■ .substantially' complied' with.- It was •:npt effecting'-'.the : result flf the!.po)l.; ::4?' : a; matter .of fact; it nil! rut affect the'result of-' the-poll at ail, and. hencp we thjnjc no ansTferjs;require^. 1 ' ■'■': :■! Paragraph 20 alleged'jfolhtre toiseoure tiie secrecy;'pf ■ th'e.ballot at' 'specified Ijootjis.,"We'. consider,'.', his Worship continued,."that thoie •was an-irregularity;here,-but that it did riot ■affect-Hhe seprepy'of |he ;bajlpt nor Jthere■suit of , the ppjlj-V-Iri our opiriionj. infill poll-' ing -booths; there .should bo proper'compart-' sot aside ; for voters," . ; "■:■'■'. ■ ■-.■■■:■ ■ 21 referred to'the returning officerls . refusal -' to , . -allow' -a' ; corutin'ei.r of the No-License party to be present at the ■pfflcial : courit of .the vptes, The Cpurt could .no|,.sep tljat',petitioners had any,'caiise for pomplaint. Tho returning officer appeared to hnyp a bpna-fido manner, and the evidence''- disclosed' the,'fact' that 'the Rev.

Jlr, Williams; all powers,of a. scrutineer, In any'event, , there was nothi ing to affept tho result of the poll. ■ ■'' : On paragraph .22 no evidence was offered, and paragraph' 23 (refusal ( ; to ■ allow •Licence supporters .to ins.peo'k thp roll)-: was poyered by the , Court's reply to .paragraphs 9, 10, and 11.',:... ■'.:.,. ' ' ;.:':". :'•■': '-• :.To .paragraph. ?d. (alleged irregular-, ity at "the official count) the Court would "like •to hear the respondent's answer. .'■' T: Paragraph 25 (dijal voting) had Wen' aban.dpned, ' ;■•■,■.•..■..•■• • ; .. ..- ; .-. ..:. ';,,.■..". .- ■ ;■ Paragraphs 26,27, and 28 (alleged personation,' voting, by perspns. : outside the xlistriot and-failure, tp supply, persons who spoilt their, ballot l papers with, ne-jr ballot papery) would ! reqiure a.n answer. ;•-.....,".- .' ; ;. ' , 7 ■'' ■'. :No been pff ered on paragraphs 29 .to !33 inclusive, i ...i "■■■■'•-'■ :"."",,!-; ■:-, Pairaprnphs 34 and 35,.(allRging thedisplay of an efljgy.on n, motprrcar. of a man holdiim up a not of beer'and, the wprd"Libert,y'' printed thereon,- ..the. driving .of tlie.motor-,, car through;the'electorate on,the "day of the poll,. and the alleged. driviri".pf a cart -with' a tanki and. |hs word ''Beor". written thorepn through, Petpne pn polling dsty) would have to bo anfi|r«red,. '. - : ■.'.'"• ... : '■ ' '•■'■' ■■ ;, i Paragraph: 36 .wss dropped, .3/ ..to ;44 inclusive - (all alleging illegal '■' disposal of liquor on the day of the poll in different parts of the ehotorato) would rcquirp an answer, Paragraphs 46 anrl 46 (alleging ireo.beer »t Epuni booth, and the offer of £5 to an eloptor-for his rpto) were' dropped, - ,i :HJ3 Worjhip ponotuded'the Conrt's answer (pf which- the foreupins; is » fairly'full summary) by' «tatinij that respondehta wpuld therefore b« called upon to answer nara.graphßj4i 26 to 28, 34; 33, 97 to;' 44."■ ■ '■■ ■■:■ ;Pr, j>l Arthur made rio reference to paragraph 17, dealing with the allegation that the returning officer wrongfully. addressed a voter; and' Mr. Atkinson' said it was not abandoned, The evidence was that he addressed the; witness,-but Dr, 'M'Arthur said th»t the reverse w«s,the-case. ■;■■■ •'.. ,Mr. Atkinson aslfeß the Magistrate .to ]opk. up;his note, but the difficulty v,-.-.s obviated by Mr.'Skerrett'sagreeing to allow .the paragraph to--remain. • "■■- ■■ ' ' The Court then ndjournod uutili 2 p.m. today, :. ' ;■■■ -' .:.:- ■ ;•■••■ '; ,•: ' ' ! v '