NEWTOWN LICENSING POLL

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1617, 25 February 1903, Page 57

NEWTOWN LICENSING POLL

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DR Me ARTHUR. ANOTHER A D JOURNAL ENT. On Saturday morning the Newtown licensing inquiry AVas advanced another stage, when further legal argument was taken before Dr McArthur, S.M. Mr Skerrott and Mr Lori appeared in support of the petition to ha\’e the poll declared A’oid and Air Bell and Mr Atkinson to oppose. Air Skerrott, at tiio outset, said he intended replying to the arguments of Air Bell and Mr Atkinson, but before doing so ho would like to state that in regard to the will of prohibition issued prohibiting the .Magistrate from exercising jurisdiction under subsection G cf section 191 of the Electoral Act, 1902,, it had been arranged to proceed with the remaining branches of the case, and 1 iis Worship could hold over judgment on the points concerned in the Avrit of prohibition pending the appeal to ho made against the decision of the Chief Justice. Ho (Mr Skerrott) would also point out that his Honor expressly said ho did not determine the question - of Avhether the roll AA’as conclusive. XTis Honor had only touched on the second and third grounds of the petition, and it seemed quite clear that he had misunderstood the grounds of his Worship’s judgment. Further, ho had stated that hi.s "Worship had overruled the decision in Bastings v. Stratford, and that he had overlooked section 191 of the Electoral Act. He (Air Skerrott) understood that his Worship had done nothing of the kind. His Worship remarked that he had expressed no opinion on the case referred to.

Air Skerrott, continuing, quoted from the judgment cf Mr Justice Williams in Bastings a*. Stratford a judgment Avliich his Worship had ncA*er been asked to hold erroneous. Ho had been asked if persons mentioned in the petition. Avcre not entitled to vote under

the Regulation of Local Elections Act — not under the Electoral Act. It seemed to counsel that the Judge had decided cn a false interpretation of the facts—the language Avas so plainly explicit that “he ayllo runs might read.” He had never seen a more apt illustration of the. Avisdom of the advice so often giA’en by Judges to Magistrates, lieA’cr to gum reasons for their decisions, than the judgment under notice. Counsel then asked that the names of. Joseph "Wylie, Amy Elizabeth Cuff and Cornelius Sullivan he struck off the roll, and proceeded to deal Avitli the application of petitioners to have tho ay hole election declared void on the grounds that various irregularities had occurred under subsection G of section 50 of the A.ct. Two classes of irregularities Avere involved: (1) Tho method of counting the votes, and (2) irregularities in the proceedings of the Returning Officers. He asked that tho election bo declared a* old on both these grounds. I-t Avas an anomaly that if the votes Avere counted on an erroneous principle, tho Court had no poAver to correct the error. Tho Court had no no Aver to direct a recount, and too only alternative aars to declare the election void. In regard to informal votes, with tho exception of these papers on Avliich all three propositions Avere to bo struck out, informal votes should be counted as “votes recorded.” The decision of Air Justice Benniston and others which his learned friend relied on were of no real assistance to his Worship in determining the Act cf 1895. The petitioners relied on tho language or section 8. av hi oh stated that- there must be. “a majority of not less than threefifths of all voters svfiose votes Avcrc recorded.” The Returning Officer had first “to count- the votes,” “reject all informal votes” and “ascertain the rend of the poll.” He put it that the Returning Officer had, after rejecting the informal A’oteq to ascertain if the number • of formal votes was not less than three-fifths of the votes recorded. Air Bell: I contend that the Avorcl “then” should bo read before “ascertain

Air Skerrott said the second branch of the case dealing Avith the irregularities ayrs very strong. It Avas important to distinguish between an election held for the House of Representatives and an election held under the provisions of the Regulation cf Local Elections Under the latter Act his Worship Avas bound to declare the election void if it Avas shown the irregularities “tended to defeat the fairness of tho election.” It avrs quite enough if the irregularities “tended,-” or “had a bent-” or a “likelihood,” or “were calculated” to defeat the fairness of the poll. Tho majority in this instance was small, and his \V o vs hip had yet to ascertain how throe persons, aa’lio AA’ere admittedly Avrongly on the rollhad voted. In the case Avliere the majority AA’as large, such irregularities aa ould not have so great- an effect, perhaps, as they aa’ci'o calculated to have in the Newtown case. The Returning Officer had failed at the Brooklyn booth to give tho voting-paper sLmulhv'cously—a proA'ision which involve.- he

very spirit of the ballot. He did not wish to have tho clause providing for simultaneous delivery of voting-papers interpreted literally, but it was quite possible that electors, after voting for the candidate, did not return for a licensing paper. There AA’ere some people who did not hold a* cry strong views on the liquor questions, and cared very little whether they \'oted or not* and the paper had to bo thrust into their hands, so to speak. He could not conceive a Averse irregularity.

Air Bell asked if there was a greao discrepancy between the licensing and tho electoral returns for the Brooklyn booth. That would dispose of that point.

Air Skerrott said it Avas impossible to say. In other respects the provisions of tlie Act had been violated. Aroro than six A’oters had been allcAvecl in the booth at one time, and a man named Nic.hol had been permitted to enter the booths Avithout authority on several occasions. The Island Bay booth Avas unattended to at periods, the officials going out and loafing about the grounds till voters came along. The votingpapers had been left in the charge of an expressman—Heaven knCAV avlio—and not returned to the Returning Officer as provided, and at Ridtliford street tho booth had been left unattended by a responsible person. Counsel Avould say tiio poll had been flagrantly conducted at Brooklyn, and it Avas surely proper to decide that the election should not stand.

His "Worship said the laxity of tho Brooklyn officials Avas most unpardonable. There Avas nothing to prevent the papers being tampered Avith. Air Skerrott enlarged on the arguments ho had already adduced,, and stated that in another three years the electors—if the poll Avas declared A’oid —Avould have a chance to validly and properly express their opinions. The petitioners, if they Avere successful, Avero not in any Avay to blame because the voto for reduction Avould not be given effect to. That AA’as one of those anomalies Avhicli had boon referred to over and over again. He would ask his Worship to declare the poll smid on both grounds. Air Levi followed in a similar strain. Mr Bell said he had a grieA’anca against his learned friend. He (Air Bell), at the commencement of the inquiry, had asked his Worship to deal Avith all the points, and not to hear Air Skerrott on one point- alone. His request Avas not acceded to; they had been drhen to the Supreme Court on the question of the scrutiny, and after succeeding there, petitioners hoaa’ asked to have the poll declared A’oid on grounds aalilcli, if taken in the initial stages of tjie case, would rendered the application to the Supreme Court unnecessary. Failing on the scrutiny, Air Skerrott had kept the last- course of action up his sleeve, so to speak. Counsel, replying to Air Skerrett’s arguments, said there AA’as no clause in tho Electoral Act that prcA’idcd that the Returning Officer must reject- all tho informal A’otes before determining the result of the poll. He had also been reminded by Air Thomson that informal A-otes and votes Avhicli hy statute AA’cro not- to be counted as A’otes recorded, AA’ere ail in one packet. Then Ills Worship would have to be satisfied that the irregularities Avere not general but distinct. He (counsel) diet not think bis Worship Avould submit to the argument that lie Avas to decide this case on different lines to a municipal election. He ventured to say that no election could be conducted Avithout irregularities of some kind occurring. The object cf all the Acts was to provide that elections Avere to be held in tho same manner throughout the colony. Would the Magistrate decide that a municipal election Avas to be voided because the Returning Officer Avas outside during the polling? If lie did, he AA’ould be over-ruling the Pa tea ease. Tie admitted that the Brooklyn ballot-box-business in some respects might- bo serious, but did anybody believe that the ballot-papers had been actually interfered Avith? The onus cf proof lay Avith his learned friend; it- was not for him (Air Bell) to prove they had not. There avculcl have to be a real reason for bis Worship believing the ballotbox AA’as tampered Avith. There was not a majority of only four Azotes to consider —there Avas an overwhelming majority in faA’our of reduction —and it was for his Worship to say if any of _ the irregularities referred to had the slightest effect on the result of the poll. All his learned friend had said would have applied in a far greater degree to the Pa tea case. His Worship, in ans Aver to a question, said ho would inform counsel when he intended to open the three ballotpapers mentioned in the proceedings, and adjourned the ease to Friday afternoon, when he avIU deliver his decision.