REASONS GIVEN

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22313, 24 April 1947, Page 6

REASONS GIVEN

OFFICIALJRECOUNT DECISIONS BY S.M. 18 DISPUTED RULINGS (P.A.) HAMILTON, April 23. His reasons for allowing or disallowing certain votes for each candidate when he conducted tire official recount for Raglan were outlined to the- Electoral Court by Mr, S. L. Paterson. S.M., in a written statement presented to the court this morning There are 18 cases in which the magistrate's ruling is disputed—five by the petitioner and 13 by the respondent. Mr. Paterson, in his statement, which both parties accept as factually correct, sets out his reasons for the decision given in each instance. This is the eighth day of the hearing, and the case for the petitioner Johnstone is expected to conclude to-day ot-to-morrow. The Chief Justice. Sir Humphrey O’Leary, and the senior puisne judge. Sir Archibald Blair, have yet to hear evidence of the validity of 118 votes challenged by the respondent Baxter. Dealing in his statement with the case of a voter who was inadvertently handed two ballot papers, both of which were found in the ballot box folded up together with Johnstone's name struck out on each, the magistrate said he had upheld the returning officer’s action in allowing the first of the two votes and rejecting the second as informal. The first paper had been correctly stamped and numbered, while the second one bore neither stamp nor number. At the recount it was claimed for Johnstone—as it is claimed in the present action —that both the votes should be disallowed because the elector took advantage of the deputy returning officer’s mistake to try to vote twice. Lack ol Official Marking The magistrate ruled that it was a reasonable inference, from the lack of official marking on the second paper and on the corresponding counterfoil, that it had been torn out and handed inadvertently to the voter by mistake without any intention to issue it. If the formalities for issuing a ballot paper had not been complied with and there was no intention to hand out. such a paper officially, then it had not been issued.

“It is not an attempt at dual voting. There is no evidence of the intention to exercise two votes because both papers were folded up together.” said the magistrate. “There was nothing in the nature of a personation.” The unstamped paper, he ruled, must inevitably be rejected, but the remaining one was a valid vote for Baxter. Discussing the ballot naper objected to as informal because the name Johnstone was struck out and the words “had it” were written alongside, the magistrate said he ruled that the words were written in ordinary handwriting which had no marked characteristics and therefore could not lead to identification of the voter. The vote was valid. Ruling on the ballot paper challenged because neither name was struck out but’ a tick was placed alongside Baxter’s name. Mr Paterson said he allowed the vote as valid for Baxter because the intention of the voter was clearly indicated. It was distinguishable irom the marking of a paper by a cross because such a mark was equivocal, whereas a tick was universally regarded as a mark of approbation. Difficuties of Sick and Infirm Mr. Paterson, in the case of a postal ballot paper objected to as illegible, said postal voting papers were issued to sick and infirm voters who might have difficulty in writing legibly. Such a voter should not be lightly d>sfrancv,ised on the ground of illegibility. The name written could be seen to begin with the letter B and to include the letter T. indicating that the name was Baxter to whom the vote was therefore allowed. Among the rulings of the magistrate to which the respondent objected was that on a paoer declared informal by the returning officer on the ground that both names were struck out. The magistrate, reversing the ruling of the returning officer, said that on this paper the name Baxter was struck out with several lines clearly drawn right through it. but the name Johnstone had a very faint line only part of the way through it. This vote was allowed as valid for Johnstone because the voter’s intention was clear. Another t>aper on which both names had been struck out but nencil marks drawn through the name Baxter had been rubbed apparently with a wet finger was ruled informal because the voter’s intention to vote for Baxter did not appear to be clearly indicated. No Name Struck Out A paper on which both names had been struck out and the name Johnstone written in capital letters at the bottom was allowed as valid for Johnstone because it was admissible within the provisions of the Electoral Act and the voter could not be identified from his writing. Another paper similarly treated was also deemed valid. Another paper similar! ytreated was also deemed valid. A paper on which no name was struck out but a line was drawn just above the name Johnstone was rejected as informal upon the ground that it did not clearly indicate the voter's intention.

A paper on which the name Johnstone was struck out and the words For Labour” had been written against Baxter's name was disallowed as informal upon the ground that the writing had distinguishing characteristics from which the writer might be identified. Another paper rejected as informal had the name Johnstone struck out, but Baxter's name had been written in script on the back of the paper next to the official stamp. The paper was folded in such a way that the name Baxter as written could have been seen by the poll clerk and scrutineers and the voter identified. An absentee vote on which the name Johnstone had been struck out and the words, “Who else would I vote for?” written against Baxter's name was judged informal on the ground that the voter could be identified from his writing. This could be done more easily in the case of an absentee voter. The magistrate rejected as informal four absentee votes which did not. comply with the regulations in that only one voter's name had been filled in, whereas the deputy returning officer is obliged to fill in the names of voters on a blank ballot form before handing it to the voter.