CONDUCT OF AN ELECTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12279, 25 May 1903, Page 7

CONDUCT OF AN ELECTION.

A RETURNING OFFICER FINED.

At the Police Court on Saturday morning, j before Mr. H. W. Brabant, S.M., Mr. J. C. j Webster (town clerk of Devonport) was j charged on the information of Ernest Hope Peel that, being returning officer for the borough of Devonport, he did negligently omit to provide proper accommodation for the taking of a poll for the election of councillors. There was ,n second charge of negligently conducting the same election. Mr. J. C. Martin, on behalf of the accused, said that the charges were admitted. Mr. T. Cotter, who appeared for the informant, said that Mr. Webster was appointed returning; officer, and apparently believed that he had the right to act as returning officer and town clerk and to conduct the election on the same premises. In this case lie had appointed deputies to assist, and the rule- was that where there was more than one booth he could then, only appoint deputies •t> them and must attend one himself. He had allowed the election to be conducted in the Borough Council Chambers, and the room used had three doors, by which egress might be made, notwithstanding that . the Act provided that the booth must have one outlet only, and that the voters must be seen by the returning officer as they entered. Mr. Webster had sworn in deputies and passed in and out of the room during the day. Mr. Martin said the facts were not really •in dispute. The same room had been used for the election that had been used ill past years and long before Mr. Webster assumed office. His client had no idea that he was committing a breaoh of tho law, and thought he had a right to appoint deputy-poll clerks, and that they could act when he was out o:f the room, bat that their functions ceased on his return. There was but little polling till the close of the day, and Mr. Webster thought he had a right to go away to the next room and attend to the work of his office. Under the circumstances he had advised his client to plead guilty, and asked that a nominal penalty be inflicted, as the error was not a wilful one.

Mr. Cotter agreed that there was no wilful neglect. , A fine of Is was imposed in respect ol each information, with costs totalling £3 75..