WRITING COMPARED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22314, 26 April 1947, Page 6

WRITING COMPARED

ABSENTEE VOTES DECLARATION FORMS LENGTHY EVIDENCE HEARD (P.A.) HAMILTON. April 24. The abandonment of seven objections by the petitioner and of four by the respondent was announced during yesterday's proceedings of the Electoral Court A feature of yesterday afternoon's evidence was the examination of present and former registrars of electors for Raglan as to their handling and custody of certain enrolment and other forms returned by voters from time to time. Fur the first time a handwriting expert was called upon to give evidence, and this led to interesting reminiscences between this witness and the Chief Justice. Sir Humphrey O’Leary, as .to legal proceedings in which they had both appeared in Wellington in 1932. Invalidity Alleged The Court dealt durrng the afternoon with several groups of absentee votes to which the peiitioner objected on the grounds of alleged invalidity. The Chief Justice, after submissions had been heard as to the validity of one postal vote challenged by the petitioner Johnstone as being illegible, said that while the Court was not generally making its decisions known at once, this was a case in which the voters' intention was clear and the vote was valid for the respondent Mr. T. Cleary announced that the respondent was not proceeding with his objections concerning four ballot papers, one of which the magistrate had ruled as informal authough the respondent claimed it valid in his favour, and three of which the respondent had claimed were informal, although the magistrate allowed them a 3 valid for the petitioner. Mr. W. J. Sim. K.C., tor the petitioner, said that since the objection was lodged to the absentee votes of five married women on the ground that there was no signature in the married name to compare with the voters’ declaration, additional information had come to light with tire result that it was not intended to proceed in four of the five cases listed under this heading- , « It now appeared that there was another document whereby the registrar had the married signature in his office, and even though tms was not produced when comparisons should have been made by the returning officer, these cases would not be pursued. The remaining case of this class upon which evidence was heard was that ot Pauline Irene Dromgool, married, of rsnkton. Married Women Voters James Provo Miller, postmaster at Ngaruawahia and registrar of electors tor Raglan, said the iorms which bad been found since the election petition was longed included torms returned by married women confirming their cnange of name alter marriage._ Witness said these forms were founa in a shed on post office property in wnich some electoral records, mostly old ones, were kept. He had round them himself. Mr. Sim: Who asked you to find them? Vv'itness: I was given a list by a Mr. Butler and told that these cards should Da there Pie asked me to searen iui tnem. To Mr Cleary, tor the respondent, witness detailed ihe routine proceauie vvnereoy these conrirmauon earns were obtained trom married women, .aid similar procedure whereby a purge, or tne roil was made belore i.n election with all electors being to ascertain whether they nad changed tneir address. Thus, the registrars should oecone possessed ol another signature trom an elector in addition to that on his application iorni. Dromgool appeared in the main 194 i) roil under ner maiden name, out as Dromgooi on the supplementary roll. This indicated that she had signed and returned a card confirming ner cnange oi name. Witness' said that Dromgool was not now living in uie Ragiau electorate, and in t tnruary ol this year alter notification nad oeen received, trom tne Waitomo registrar ol her enrolment in that electorate her card confirming the chpnge of name was destroyed. Check of Papers Made

Witness said lie considered the letters ”P. 1.” in the signature oi the maiden and married name were written in an identical style. He had seen tier continuation card beiore it was destroyed. To Mr. Sim, who asked U any check were made before the papers were destroyed as to whether they had a bearing on the petition, witness said his predecessor as returning officer had completed all the usual checks o A election papers witness Knew of other cases or similar caras being destroyed. Mr. Sim: Did it occur to anybody that a petitijii was to be heard, and that it wouid be proper to keep all the documents affecting Raglan? Witness: 1 was new to the work and it did not occur to me that there was any value in hie cards of voters who had been removed lrom my roll. John Cameron Haliiday, postmaster, of Huntly, said he retained the office as registrar of electors and returning officer nr Raglan until alter the general election vVitness said he did not personally check Dromgool’s declaration lorm. There were in his book of instructions no instructions as io checking absentee votes. There was as tar a a he Know nothing in the Electoral Act obliging uim. to compare two signatures of absentee voters. He did not know that be should make' such a comparison, and he did not do so. Witness said he knev/ that' a form continuing her change of name was returned by Dromgool. The lorm also notified her removal from the Raglan electorate and was, therefore, placed witn forms irom other electors nolitying removals lo oilier electorates. To Mr Sim, witness said he recalled the receipt of Dromgool's confirmation of marriage, because he himself made the alteration on her enrolment card He could not recall the date of the receipt of the notification, but it wouid be within a few days of October 11, 194 b, .the date upon which the amending entry was made on the card.

Not Approached by Counsel Witness said that Mr. Tompkins, as counsel for the petitioner. Johnsione, had not approached him asking him to inspect registration cards and othei documents after the petition was lodged. Such a request might have been made to Miller, i-le himself had destroyed no documents and was unaware that Miller had done so until Miller told him of the destruction oi Dromgool’s confirmation card. To Mr. R. Hardie Hoys, lor the respondent, witness said he considered tne writing in the initials “P. 1." used by Dromgooi in her signatures both as Miss May and as a married woman were identical He said the 10 absentee and the 15 postal votes objected to by the petitioner un the grounds of a lack of correspondence between the signatures wouid be only a small fraction of suen cases existing among the hundreds of absentee and postal votes received tor fiaglan. To the Chief Justice, witness said lie was satisfied ais to the identity of the voter in this case. The Chief Justice: The elector has done nothing wrong in this case. Witness: That is so. The Chief Justice: Everything was in order up to the casting of the vote? Witness: Yes. The Chief Justice: If it is impossible to identify a voter after she has voted, it is due to the action of some official of the department? Witness: Yes. Mr. Sim. in calling formal evidence ■ in the cases of 10 voles challenged be-