LOCAL OPTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14461, 2 March 1909, Page 3

LOCAL OPTION.

OHINEMURI PETITION DISMISSED. (Per I'xitf.d I'nr.ss Association-.) WAIHf, March 1. The Special Court, consisting of Messrs Burgess, Cutten, and Colonel Roberts, S.M., appointed to hoar the petition against the validity of the Ohinemuri licensing poll sat to deliver its decision to-day. the petition alleged a number of irregularities in the conduct of the licensing poll taken in the Ohinemuri district in November last, and asked that the poll he declared void.

.Judgment m effect was delivered as follows No-license was declared to have been carried by a majority of 88 votes. lo alter this result it would he ueeessarv to transfer 90 votes from no-license (o continuance, oi to add 128 votes to contiiiuance, or to deduct 220 voles from no-license, It appears from this that when a proposal has to be carried by a three-fifths majority it requires the alteration of more votes to affect the result than when a proposal has to be carried by a bare majority. A majority of 83 in this case, therefore, is a more substantial majority than it at- first appears to be. The. whole trouble connected with the conduct of the poll appeared to have been caused by the failure of the returning officer to avail himself to the -full extent of the provisions of "The Legislature Act, 1908," for taking the poll. That overcrowding did not affect the result by depriving voters of the opportunity to vote is proved by direct evidence and by the fact that throughout the day great numbers of persons (including even aged Women) voted without unreasonable delay or difficulty, and from 5 o'clock to the hour of closing very few votes were recorded. The provision of the act with regard lo each person voting in secret was absolute, and any infringement of that provision by :i voter would render his Yflte invalid, if it occurred wilfully or throngii carelessness or indifference. The duty to vote alone and secretly is positive, and the voter must take advantage of the means provided*so to vote. If he failed to do so for any reason which he could have avoided be had transgressed, and his vole was invalid. The court did not think that this could be said of a voter who entered a compartment designed to secure secrecy and- who marked his paper in secret-, and under the belief that he was alone, bill who was overlooked by another person who improperly, though itmight be with no wrong motive, invaded tile privacy of that compartment unexpectedly without the knowledge or sanction of the occupant. Regarding Mr Nathan's action, the court said there were two aspects of his action, of which it might be said that there might be a tendency to affect the result of the election. By 'his action he deprived the party opposed to no-license of the right- to have a scrutineer. No default was made by •Mr Nathan in not affording the opportunity of appointing a scrutineer, as a separate ballot box was not used by him for the voting papers he issued, but 110 doubt the intention of the statute was that there should be at least one scrutineer for each returning officer or deputy presiding at a poll. This was not a ground for interfering with the poll unless it could lie shown to have affected the result. Constable Driscoll said it was in endeavouring lo assist voters to find an empty compartment that he looked behind the screen, and in so doing saw the 'ballot papers as described, and it was suggested that the persons wailing for compartments in which to vote and looking for compartments in which to vole would have the same opportunity as Constable Driscoll to see how other persons voted. There was no evidence, however, of any person in the booth at any time throughout the day for the purpose of voting having seen bow any other wt-er was marking his paper. There was