AT INVERCARGILL.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIV, Issue 830, 1 February 1906, Page 24

AT INVERCARGILL.

r fhe hearing of the pet'tion to invalidate the loca option poll began last week. Messrs. Hoskins, Sims, and Hall, and Miss Benjamin appeared for the petit oners, and Messrs. Adams and McAlister for the respondents.

ire sitting was occupied almost entire’y with the opening address of Air. Hoski.ng, the eading counsel for the pet tioners, against the validity of the poll. The principal point raised by him was that certa n votes allowed ii the recount were informal 1 ' as far as they related to any particular proposal, but that be’ng legally votes recovered by voters, they shou'd be counted into the total number of votes recorded. He also raised the point that absent voters, except seamen, were not entitled to record their votes on the licensing issue. Counsel relied mainly on the decision of Dr. McArthur, S.M., in the Newtown case.

Some evidence was taken. A scrutineer stated that the deputy-return-ing officer refused h’m voting papers. Some peculiar manipulation of papers was disclosed. One voter had turned

the paper over and marked his erasures over lines on the other side. Another wrote “ for the colony,” in addition to the erasure. One very deaf man was refused voting papers, though on. the roll, and ab.e to read written questions if put to him, Ev dence was g ven that at certain booths persons outside stopped voters, asked their names, and gave them their numbers. The returning officer, when spoken to, said it faci. tated vot ng. The witnesses regarded this as a reasonable explanation. Mr. Adams, for the respondents, contended that absence of the official stamp from vot ng papers did not invalidate them. With regard to dual n°j ln K e ght of the persons concerned had the right to vote, while of two others one must be valid. The Bench of Magistrates then dec ded to make a scrutiny of the challenge votes, and this occupied about two hours.

On resuming. Mr. Hosking, for the petitioners, submitted, with regard to /’nsea.ed perm ts, that these should be disal owed, as the seal was the only test of authority when the paper came from a distance. One voter had recorded his local option vote on the back of the paper, and tjat should - be d so a’so should + hree s’gned papers and two bearing remarks.

Mr. Adams said that if all the votes referred to were disallowed by the Bench no-’icense would sti’l have a seven and two-fifths maiority. Mr. Hosk ng said the Bench had not yet dec-ded the point whether informal votes were to be added to the number of votes recorded.

Mr. Adams contended that votes adjudged informal were abso’utely voided, and could not be galvanised into 1 fe for any purpose. In the case of the deaf man, who, it was alleged, was refused voting papers, it was shown that he refused to answer written questions, and that he left the booth in a dudgeon. He was not put out, as was alleged. Counsel then addressed the Court on the local opt on inquiry, Mr. Adams, for the no-Hcense party, speaking for over an hour, contended that, even admitting that the Court disallowed the votes scrutinised, the respondents must succeed ’’f the Court

agreed with his contention that ab-

sent voters’ permits and unsealed papers should not be treated as suggested by the petitioners—i.e., added to the tota4 votes recorded. Judgment was reserved.