Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

OHINEMURI LOCAL OPTION POLL.

CONCLUSION OF THE EVIDENCE. (by telegraph—peess association) Walhl, February 2 Respondents in connection with the petition to void the Ohinomun licensing poll concluded their evidence to-day. Some eighty witnesses had been examined. The evidence was principally in contradiction of that' given by petitioners as to the crowded condition of tho poll and alleged violation of the secrecy of tho ballot.

Mr. Adams sajd he did not propose to call any more evidence Mr. Skerrott notified that he intended to call rebuttal evidence.

, Mr. Adams, asked on what grounds. Mr.'-Skerrett ';argued.that,,he.;was entitled to call evidence affecting the secrecy'of the ballot,' and proposed to recall. Constable Driscoll in that .respect. ' Counsel pointed out that no retrial could be held in the present case. -. In fairness and justice to the petitioners. tke\ evidence of.Constable. Driscoll should be admitted; He also proposed to call cine or two witnesses to rebut, the evidence in connection with what occurred during the poll at special times during the -day. . Mr. Adams objected to the application being granted, and submitted that his.friend should have been prepared to produce bis evidence on all points in connection with the petition. .; Mr. Skerrett could not have been : taken by .surprise, as' he (counsel), had not 'introduced any new-matter.

Mr..Skerrett-replied,and pointed out that it wasl'impossible i for him to have known to what times ••espondents' evidence was to, lie directed regarding the conduct of' the 'poll." Counsel submitted that very great injustice 'would be done to petitioners if the application:was refused. - .

The Court decided to hearDriscoll's evidence only. ' ' . "- ' -.Driscoll- stated 'that he', as the result- of: exposure and crowded condition of the polling booth, at-times saw how at least thirty voters recorded their votes,- but there may have been a greater number.

The; Court adjourned till-to-morrow morning to,'hear the-addresses of counsels; , •'-.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19090203.2.65

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 422, 3 February 1909, Page 8

Word Count
303

OHINEMURI LOCAL OPTION POLL. Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 422, 3 February 1909, Page 8

OHINEMURI LOCAL OPTION POLL. Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 422, 3 February 1909, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert