THE NEWTOWN LOCAL OPTION POLL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12600, 2 March 1903, Page 3 (Supplement)

THE NEWTOWN LOCAL OPTION POLL.

THE PETITION UPHELD. THE POLL DECLARED VOID. (Per United Fkesß Association.) WELLINGTON, February 27. This afternoon Dr M'Arthur, S.M., gave judgment on tho remaining ground of the petition to iiavo tho Newtown licensing poll, at which prohibition was carricd, declared void.. His Worship upheld tho petition and declared the poll void. The petition against the poll was filed on December 9, on the following grounds:— First, that the actual and true result of the poll was that a throe-fifths majority did not vote for no-license, and that tho total number of voters whose votes wore recorded was misstated by reason of the omission to include the votes recorded, but which could not be counted Iwcause of non-compliance with section 123 of "The Electoral Act, 1902"; second, that n number of persons voted who were not entitled to vole, and that their votes should be struck off, and the result amended, or, in the alternative, the poll must bo declared void; third, that gross irregularities occurrcd in taking the poll which tended to defeat the fairness of tho election. The second ground of tho petition was dismissed from the judgment as the question of tlie conelmivenoss of tho roll has been decided by tho Court of Appeal. This left the third ground to be treated. On the fust ground of objection against the poll his Worship reviewed tho evidence at considerable length, and quoted largely from law reports of eases taring on tho subject. Ho pointed out that there are three kinds of informal votes—(a) votofi properlyKind duly tendered, but which do not bear thp official stamp; (k) votes which havo some identifying mark; and (c) votes in which all three proposals or none at all are struck out. It was not contended tlmt the class in which all or none of the proposals aro struck out should 1)3 deemed to bo recorded, as by express statutory provision anyone who records his vote in such a manner shall not bo deemed to be a voter who han recorded his voto. He was therefore concerned with two classes of votes—those not bearing the official stamp and those bearing somo identifying mark. Wore these votes, though not counted for any one of the proposals, to bo included in the total number of voters who recorded their votes? In the case of those on which there was no officio] stamp, the informality was through tho misfeasance or nor f feasance of tho .returning officer; while in the case of those which had some-identifying mark, tho informality arose through the act of tho voter himself. It eeemed to his Worshin that the strict and unambiguous meaning of tho cxprcesion "Votero wlioe® votes were reeoraod" is "Persons who applied for and received their voting panerß, who filled them in correctly ftnicl placed them in tho ballot box." The misfeasance or non-feasance of tho returning officer did not affect the recording pf a vote, which was solely the act of the voter. On the question of—Are those voters who havo correctly filled in papers, but whose votes have been declared informal through tho default of the returning officer, to be deemed to havo recorded their votes? His Worship came to the conclusion, as section 7 of the act of 1895 raiders a certain class of informal voters as not deemed to have recorded their votes, that all other classes of informal voters, such as thoeo under notice, shall'bo deemed to havo recorded their votes. His Worship agreed that the total number of voters whose votes wore recorded bad been misstated in the declaration of tho poll by reason of the omission to include the votes recorded, but which could not be counted because of non-complianco with section 128 of "The Electoral Act, 1902." Coming to the third ground of the objection, and after reviewing the law with regard to irregularities tit an election, his Worship's judgment proceeded:—The chief irregularities complained of by the petitioners and-admitted by the officials aro atBrooklyn Bollimg booth. Tho voting papers for electoral and for_ licensing purposes were not given out simultaneously for a period of three hours at tho Brooklyn polling booth. On different occasions there were more than six voters in the booth at one time. A representative of the Nolicen'so League was allowed to go into several booths on different occasions. At Brooklyn the papers wore not mado up aind sent to the returning officer till the following day. One elector's namo was wrongly struck off the roll. Three names still remain subject, if called on, to a scrutiny. Lookimg at the law of elections and tho particular circumstances of this election, more particularly the closeness of the result, in my opinion it is open to reasonable doubt whether these irregularities may not

have affected the result, and it is uncertain whether mo-license has been carried by tho required majority. That being my opinion, I am bound to declare the election void. I do so oh two grounds—First, that the total mimbor of voters whose votes were recorded was inifahtcd by reason of the omission to include votes recorded, but which could not bo counted because of lion-compliance with section 128 of "The Electoral Act, 1S02"; second, that irregularities occurred in taking the noil which tended to defeat tho fairness of the election. I have given the closest possible attention to this case from the filing of tho petition to the present timo. I havo read every case and reference quoted by counsel, and heaps more, and, having done so, I can only conclude, in the words of Mr Justice Willis in tho Wcstbury case:—"l must pronounce for truth as I bolievo it tipon the facts, and for law as I best know it upon question; of law."