POLL VOID

Southland Times, Issue 25311, 14 June 1935, Page 8

POLL VOID

MAGISTRATE’S DECISION.

HALF-HOLIDAY QUESTION.

(Per United Press Association.)

Hastings, June 13.

“I determine that irregularities so materially affected the result of the poll that the poll is void,” says a written judgment in which Mr J. Miller, S.M., in the Hastings Magistrate’s Court to-day, announced his decision in respect to a petition to upset the poll on the half-holiday question in Waipukurau on May 8. The poll showed a majority of 7 votes in favour of Wednesday. “The result of my finding is that so many votes of those set out under the heading of bodies corporate, etc., have been rendered nugatory,” said Mr Miller, “it would be unfair if these important bodies with so much at stake are denied votes. A fresh poll is therefore desirable on the grounds that the petition concerned a provision enabling voters whose names have been inadvertently omitted from the roll to vote after making a declaration. “The returning officer refused to allow the scrutineers to see the declarations on the ground that it would infringe the secrecy of the ballot. I am of the opinion that the scrutineers were entitled to inspect the declarations.” Referring to two votes thus recorded, his Worship said he was obliged to disallow them. The judgment went on to refer to the returning officer’s action in waiving the obligation upon electors representing corporate bodies to produce their authority, and says it is therefore imperative that it should be produced. If waiving failure to produce authority to the returning officer can be allowed, it can be only in those cases where *new authorities were in existence. Petitioners contend that the returning officer should not have allowed tenants holding a joint tenancy or tenancy in common to vote individually as well as in the case of one tenant voting by proxies for a firm. It is clear that an agent, for say a company, is not precluded from exercising his individual vote because he has voted on behalf of the company. That is not dual voting, for the latter vote is the company’s vote.