BAY OF ISLANDS SEAT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 6 December 1928, Page 6

BAY OF ISLANDS SEAT.

WILL RESULT BE UPSET? The following are some of the grounds by which the election of Air Rushworth for the Bay of islands seat may be -upset : There was no Justice of the Peace present at the official c-ount by the returning officer, consequently such count was invalid, and the magisterial recount appears to be a nullity because it depended for its- validity on tlie production to the stipendiary magistrate of a certificate by a J.P. under subsection (5) of Section 5 of “The Electoral Act, 1927.” On being requested to produce the deputy-returning officer’s returns from the polling booths as to- the number of votes cast at such booths it was found that in a number of cases there were neither returns nor telegrams for such booths giving the number of votes east and the number of ballot papers used. To ascertain the position the figures given on the preliminary return made by the returning officer at his preliminary count had to be referred to, which, to say the least, was no evidence of the number of voting papers used at the polling booths.

Contrary to the regulations governing the procedure in connection with postal votes, Mr Blundell, the returning officer, counted 95 postal votes on the night of the poll. There were no scrutineers present at three, and at the official count he did not give the scrutineers an opportunity of either counting the postal votes or of comparing the signatures on the certificates to see if they were written in accordance with the regulations governing postal votes. When these votes were counted by the magistrate there were 94 only; as Mr Blundell obtained a total of 95 such votes cast on the licensing issue, the inference is that there is a postal ballot paper missing, although the register kept by Mr Blundell showed 94 votes. It was found that the returning officer had received 1122 absent voters' ballot papers; of these 30 were votes that should not have been allowed (persons not entitled to vote, etc.). When the ballot papers counted by Mr Blim-j dell at the official count were checked, it was found that 290 voting papers had been treated by him as valid votes when the number should have been 292. On checking the declarations of absent voters that had been disallowed, it was found that there was only 27 with envelopes containing voting papers attached thereto. The consecutive numbers of three were ascertained from their declarations, and the corresponding voting papers were extracted, leaving n total of 293. which was one more than the correct number. This is explained by one absent voter apparently not signing an application •for an absent voter’s ballot paper, but furnishing the deputy-returning officer with a notice to him as registrar of no significance or value whatever. This document did not contain the consecutive number of the ballot paper nor the 1 ooth at which the vote was cast, so that the ballot paper could not be identified and therefore could not he extracted from the parcel of valid absentee votes. The returning officer apparently took upon himself to treat this vote as valid. Two applications for absent ballot papers (consecutive numbers 275 and 273) were written in pencil and were not in the form of declaration | prescribed by the Act. They were pronounced correct by the registrar of electors and were allowed by the magistrate on the ground that the magistrate was bound by the registrar’s certificate <jf identity. I

Aii absent voter’s application (consecutive number 273) was disallowed owing to the voter making a mistake in spelling his name, so that his signature did not correspond with the specimen signature on the enrolment card in possession of the registrar. The registrar of electors certified that he was not on the roll.

Thirty-five postal votes- were disallowed by the magistrate owing to the signatures on the postal vote certificates not having been witnessed by a duly authorised person. Air Lux ford was very reluctant to do this, hilt could only comply with the regulations made under the statute. It was- pointed out that applications for postal voting certificates were witnessed by Densons who had no authority to witness them, but the magistrate had no jurisdiction over these as the certificates- were, on the face of them, in order. If this matter was before an electoral court it would be gone into and at least half the postal votes which had been allowed could be disallowed. The whole of the votes from a hospital were disallowed as they were witnessed by an unauthorised per-son-—namely, the secretary of the hospital board. Air Blundell at one stage stated that lie had authorised the secretary to do -so and at another said that he" thought the secretary would ho treated as a permanent officer of the Government and authorised accordingly. At any rate the secretary did not claim such authority in his attestation.