MATAURA LOCAL OPTION POLL.

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

MATAURA LOCAL OPTION POLL.

THE PETITION DISMISSED. (I'noM Ofli Own ConHKsroxDHXT.) GORE, February 19. Mr Cruickshank, S.M., to-day delivered his deterred judgment as follows on tho petition praying that the recant, local option vote, by which prohibition was carricd in the Mataura licensing district, should be declared invalid:"This is an inquiry ordered to be held in pursanco of a petition under section! 8 or " Tho Regulation of Local Elections Act, 1876." praying that the local option poll recently taken in the Mataura electorate may be declared void, upon the ground oi various irregularities alleged in the conduct of the election'. Tho local option or licensing poll is taken by virtue of " The Alcoholic Liquors Sale Con. trol Act, 1895," the seventh section of which enacts that the returning ofiiccr of the electoral distfict shall, upon tiic day appointed for taking the parliamentary poll, proceed in tho manner provided by the Electoral Act to take this licensing poll. This seventh section contains the further provision that, if a licencing poll is disputed, the matter in dispute shall be determined by a magisterial inquiry, held under the Regulations of Local Elections Act, in the "same manner as ii the licencing poll were an electoral poll." By the decision in the case Bastings v. Stratford it was decided that the words " electoral poll." just quoted, mean an electoral poll under the Local Elections Act, and not an electoral poll under Hie law regulating parliamentary elections. This being the law, we have then to turn to section 50 of tho Regulation of Local Elections Act to find what will invalidate an election. Subsection 2 says: "If upon any inquiry it appears that the poll was opened beyond, or was not opened within, the hours hereby required, the whole election shall be void"; and subsection G says: "If upon any inquiry it appears that any other irregularity occurred in the proceedings which, in tho opinion of the magistrate, tended to defeat tho fairness oi the election, the whole election shall be void." I have therefore to decide the matters ill dispute, not by the common law of parliamentary elections, as laid dovn in the leading case of Woodward v. Sarsons, but by the above clcarlvdefined rules. By Die common law minor irregularities will not disturb any election, unless they can be shown to affect the result; but I am bound hero by the local election statute, and I havo to decide the question in the same manner as if it war. a dispute into the conduct of a Itoad Board election. All the allegations in the petiiion come under one or other of the two subsections which T havo quoted—either subsection 2, which is so strict about the opening and closing time, or subsection 6, which deals wiili tho irregularities which tended to defeat the fairness of the election. To deal first with the alienations coming under subsection 2—that is, that strict time was not kept,—evidence was given of the hours kept at the following polling places:—Gore, Hedgchope, Otaniita, Waikawa, and Waikawa Valley. Core.—This was the principal polling place, and was under the general superintendence of Mr Boyno, tho returning officer. The evidence here is very clear, and not conflicting. Every, thing was all in order and ready at 0 a.m., when Mr Boyno shut the main door, and told the officials inside, 2-1 in number, to vote. This was done, and the main door was immediately again opened at 9.15 a.m. to the public. There was also a side door open all the time. I am satisfied that the polling coimtieiictd at S a.m. here, and to have allowed the genera! public in until the officials had voted would have caused a block. I therefore lioid that stricttime was kept at Gove. Hedgohope.—The evidence shows that the deputy reti-miug officer for the licensing poll was in his place and ready to take votes at 9 a.m., the door being open. It is not- clear whether the deputy-returning officer for the electoral poll was at the booth punctually or not, several witnesses saying he was 2D minutes late, and it iG admitted that the latter officer had the official seal. I have, however, only to inquire into iho licensing poll, and not into the pranks of the elfctornl returning officer. The fact of the electoral officer, with the seal in his pocket, lining absent for a short period, only nffec'.a the licensing poll to the extent that it means that the papers may not be given cut simultaneously, and that the voting paper will not be stamped with the official seal, but with some other mark oil the back thereof. Eoth of those facts will he dealt with later, when dealing with the question of irregularities. I hold, therefore, that Hcdgehope booth kept the regular hours. Otamita.— I This is purely a question of evidence, and I hold that the petitioners have not proved to my satisfaction that the strict hours were not kept. Waikawa.—This is also a question of evidence, and it is not proved to my satisfaction that legal hours were not kept. Waikawa Valley.—The evidence here shows that the house of the licensing returning officer was gazetted as the polling place, The actual voting took place In the front room, which opened off the hall. The hall or front door was open all day. At lunch time and tea timo all tile officials left the front room, locked it, and retired, foi, soy, 20 minutes into the adjourning room, where they had a meal. A voter who called during this interval oi refreshment was given a meal before they all returned into the voting room, when he voted. This incident will be dealt with later on as an irregularity. I hold that the poll was here kept open for the time required by law. •This disposes of all the allegations that strict legal time was not absolutely kept, as required by sub-section 2, and in eacli instance I hold that tho petitioners have failed to prove their case. I shall next deal with the allegations of irregularities which tended to defeat the fairness of the election. The petition contains allegations under the heading of the whole alphabet, many of them ill wide general terms, and a number of the allegations were withdrawn. The allegations that the deputy returning officers instructed and directed voters to strike out the top line, and permitted prominent prohibitionists to harass voters into so doing, and the allegations of illegality against the S.M. at Invercargill were properly withdrawn 'by counsel at the opening. Charges like thvse against responsible officers should not be lightly made. The only irregularities mentioned in the evidence were in the direction of proving the following:—(1) Papers not given simultaneously; (2) returning officer opened the sealed packet of the Dacre voting papers; (.'() inner compartments not secret enough; (4) more than six voters in the booth at one time; (5) a voter having a meal .with the officials. (1) There is very little evidence of the ballot and voting papers not being given out simultaneously, and, without going into a dissertation on this question, so ably argued at the hearing, 1 can say without hesitation that nothing which had (he slightest tendency to defeat the fairness of the election was proved. (2) It was proved that the returning officer did wrongfully open the packet of the Dacre voting papers to find out the true result of the polling at that placc, as the telegraphic and postal returns from the deputy-returning officer varied. The recount has cured this irregularity, and, in any case, it did not affect the fairness of the election. (3) The inner compartments in certain booths were rather makeshift concerns of maps, blackboards, dosks, and easels, and would not always protect the child-like voter from an inquisitive, prying bystander. But those witnesses, chiefly hotcllceepers and licensing scrutineers, who testified about the defective arrangements, did not complain to the deputyreturning officer nt the time, and made no suggestion of improvement. Nothing that in any way affected the fairness of the election has been proved. (4) It was showp that at Oore, Edendale, and Wyndham, at certain times during the day, more than six voters were in the booth at once; but nothing unseemly occurred, and, in my opinion, clause 119 is directory only, and is intended to clothe the returning officer with the power of excluding voters, if he wishes to exercise it. when tho crowding* in tends to impede his work. Nothing has been proved that affected the fairness. (5) The fact of the voter baring a meal with the officials was distinctly irregular, and contrary to the directions given in the Electoral Act, but I fail to see any unfairness iu this particular instance. I hold, therefore, that no irregularity which affected the fairness or tended to defeat tile fairness at the election has, in my opinion, been proved. As the petitioners have failed under both sub-sections to prove their case, the petition is dismissed. Mr Neave appeared for the petitioners, and Mr Smith for the Temperance party. Mr Smith asked for costs, but tin l request was declined, each party being ordered to pay its own costs.