THE PENINSULA LICENSING ELECTION.

Evening Star, Issue 8177, 28 March 1890, Page 2

THE PENINSULA LICENSING ELECTION.

PETITION AGAINST ITS At the Resident Magistrate's Court this morning the Resident Magistrate was balled npon to decide in. a petition against the election of a lioenßing bench for the Peninsula district. The petition set forth that certain of the electors of the district believed that at the election to the offices under the Licensing Aot, 1881, held at Anderson Bay on February 28, at which Thomasßobertson, Robert Lee, Adam Nichol, Archibald M'Kay, and James Bcattie were declared duly elected a licensing bench, thb said election was null and void on the following grounds: (1) That the voting papers used at the said election were not in the form in the 4th schedule to the Regulation of Local Elections Act; 1876, but were in the words and figures below. [Hera follow the contents of the voting papers and the terms which they contained.] (2) That voting papers made otherwise than as provided by the said Regulation of Local Elections Act, 1876, were put into the ballot box at the said election,. so as to affect the result of the said election. (3) That a departure from the said, lorm of voting paper and the use of the said voting papers (a copy whereof was above written) tended to defeat the fairness of the said election ; and the petitioners prayed that an inquiry might be made into the said election under the provisions of the Act mentioned, and that the said election should bedeclared.null and. void. The petition was signed by Alexander Stewart, Edmund Ward, and William Leslie, electors. . Mr A. S. Adams appeared on behalf of the petitioners, and in opening the case said that it was a petition whereby it waß asked that the ,election for a licensing bench for Peninsula district should be declared null and void. He read the petition, and said that he would bring evidence to show that the result of the election bad been affected by the manner in which the election had been conducted. For instanca, the wording of the ballot paper was such as to mislead, and it had misled voters, and it was only altered in one word. The word "only" had been left out of the sentence, which should have read "Leave 'only' five names," but which read "Leave five names " ; and by this means a voter would be induced to vote for a man whom he formerly had no intention of voting for. With this exception, the voting paper would have been voted ; but a radical change had been made. His Worship : And what effect had this change upon the election ? What did it lead to ? Mr Adams replied that the change led to this alteration in the result of the election : It should have been intimated that men's names which had been placed on the ballot paper could have been struck out from one or more up to five, but it did not state that such waß the caße. It Btated that the names of five men should be left untouched, and this was done by several electors. The fact was that one party had nominated four and the other five men, and the party who nominated four men were, by the manner in which the ballot paper had been drawn up, induced to vote for their own men end one of their opponents. Thus the surplus vote was given to an appo* nent, and if the election had been conducted properly the election would have resulted differently. The voting had been close, the first seven candidates polling thus: 144, 144, 143, 141, 140,139, and 137. Now, had the voting papers stated correctly what should have been done the man who polled 139 votes would have made a tie at least with the man who polled 140. If any elector attended the election, and by means of the paper referred to voted for a man whom he did not intend to vote for, then it could be said that the result of the election had been affected, and the whole election was therefore null and void. It had not to be proved that a candidate had been affected, but whether the majority had been effected, and in this case that had been the result. Mr Adams then quoted a decision regarding a similar petition, and said that if it Could be proved that the fairness of the election had been defeated in that the election had not been conducted properly the petition should be granted and the eleotion declared null and void.

Alexander Stewart, one of the petitioners, a candidate at the late election and an elector, said that he remembered the day of the election, and remembered going to vote. The voting papers were Bimilar to the one produced. Witness was not returned, the voting being against him. Witness voted at the election, aid VJted for an opponent, because he thought he was forced to after leading the voting paper. Alfred Miller, returning officer, said that the election in question was held on February 28, 1890, when he was in the polling booth. All the voting papers distributed were similar to those produced. The result of the election was declared by him. He kept no record, but thought that Robertson and Lee polled 244 votes each. Edward Ward, another of the petitioners, said that he voted for five candidates. He did not intend to do that, but was led to do so because the voting papers said that such should be done. _ William Leslie, another petitioner, gave similar evidence, stating that he was led to vote for five men on account of the wording of the ballot paper. Robert Fergus, an elector, said that he voted for five men, because the footnote on the ballot paper stated that unless he voted for five men the election would be illegal. Mr Adams said he had other evidence to call, but would not do so if His Worship waß satisfied that the result of the election had been altered. His Worship replied that he was quite satisfied that the result of the election had been affected, and he would therefore declare the election null and void. It was not, in his opinion, a case where costs should be allowed.