BAY OF ISLANDS SEAT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20582, 4 December 1928, Page 8

BAY OF ISLANDS SEAT.

ELECTION OF MR RUSHWORTH. MANY IRREGULARITIES ALLEGED. (Feb United Phees Association.) WHANGAREI, December 3. The following are some of the grounds upon which the election of Mr H. M Rushworth for the Bay of Islands seat may be contested:— There was no justice of the peace ptesent at the official count by the returning officer, consequently such count, was ■ invalid, and the magisteral recount appears to be a nullity because it depended for its validity on the production to the stipendiary- magistrate of a certificate by a J.P. under sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Electoral : Act, 1927. On being requested to produce the deputy returning officer’s returns from ' the /polling booths as to the number of votes cast at such booths it was found that in a .number of .cases there were neither returns nor. telegrams from such booths. giving the number of votes cast and the number of ballot papers used. To ascertain the position the figures given on the -preliminary return made by the returning officer at his preliminary count had to be referred to, which, to say the least, was no evidence of the number of voting papers used at the polling booths. Contrary to the regulations governing the procedure in connection with postal votes, Mr Blundell, the returning officer, counted 95 postal votes on the night of the poll. There were no scrutineers present, and at the official count he did not give the scrutineers an opportunity, of either counting the postal votes or of comparing the signatures on the certificates to see it they were written in accordance with the regulations governing postal votes. When these votes were counted by the magistrate there were 94 only. As Mr Blundell obtained a total of 95 such votes cast on the licensing issue the inference is that there is v postal ballot paper missing, although the register kept-fay Mr Blundell showed 94 votes.

It was found that the returning officer had receded 322 absent voters’ ballot papers. Of these 30 wore votes ■' that should not have been allowed (persona not, entitled to'vote. etc.). When'the ballot papers counted by Mr Blundell at the official count -were checked it was found jthat, 206 voting papers had. been treated by him as valid votes, whereas the number , should have been 292. In checking the declarations of the abseht votes that, had been disallowed , it ’' Was lound that there were only 27 with envelopes containing voting papers attached tnereto. The - ; consecutive numbers, of three were ascertained from their declaration, and the corresponding voting papers were extracted, leaving a total “of 293, which wag one more than the correct hum“"T' J- “ 1B is explained by one absent voter apparently not signing an applicate/ 01 ’ an absent voter’s ballot paper, but furnishing the deputy returning officer . with a _notice to him (the registrar) oi no significance, or value whatever/ This document did not contain the consecutive number of the ballot paper or booth- at which the vote was cast, so that the ballot paper could , not be identified, and therefore could not. be extracted from the parcel of valid absentee votes. The returning officer / apparently took upon himself to treat" this vote as valid. ■ Two applications for absent voters' ballot papers (consecutive numbers 275 and were written in pencQ and were -- not i? *a £ on 2,, °f declaration prescribed by the Act. They were pronounced correct by the registrar of electors and were allowed by the magistrate on the grounds that the magistrate - was bound .by the registrar’s certificate of identity; An absent voter’s application (consecutive number 273) was disallowed owing to ,ne. voter making a mistake in spelling his name so that , his signature did not correspond With the specimen signature °?. me enrolment card .in possession, of the registrar. Thfe registta ‘of..electors certi-fied-that he was not bn the roll. .’ : Thirty-five postal votes, were disallowed by the magistrate owing to the certificates on the postal vote certificates not having been witnessed by a duly authorised person. , Mr Luxford was very, reluctant to do-this, but could only comply with-the regulations made under the /statute. It was ■ pointed - out; that applications; for Eostal voting certificates were witnessed y , persons who had no authority - to witness them, but the magistrate "had no jurisdiction over these, as the certificates were, on the face of them, in order. .If this matter were before an electoral court it would be gone into and at. least half the postal votes which had been allowed could be disallowed.

: The whole of the votes from a hospital werq disallowed as they were witnessed by an unauthorised person—namely, the secretary of the hospital board. Mr Blnndell ■at one stage stated that .he had authorised the secretary to do so, and at .another time he said that he thought the secretary would be treated .as a permanent officer of . the Government and authorised to act accordingly. At any rate, the secretary did not claim such authority in his attestation." ■ ,