HUTT LICENSING FOLL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2401, 16 January 1909, Page 5

HUTT LICENSING FOLL.

INTEKEfiMNO EVIDENCE

[Press Association.]

WELLINGTON, Jan. 14

The following evidence -wias given at the hearing of the petition against the .result of the, Hutt Licensing poll: ■ - - R. iMotilieS', returning officer, produced his marked official roll, a compilation from the rolls of the deputies. This showed all the persons who bad voted, and those who had not voted, lie considered there had been cases of impersonation. Vivian Henry Sanson, residing at Eastbourne, insurance clerk, said he voted at tho licensing poll at Eastbourne booth, Muritai. Ho did not vote elsewhere.

'Similar evidence was given by others in whose names it is alleged there .was impersonation. Daisy -Elsie -Collet, living in Emerson Street, Petoiie, said her name was Waiter before she was married. She was on the Hutt roll under her maiden name. iSlie did not vote at the licensing poll, as her name was struck off. iSho received -a notice from the registrar after her marriage that her name had been changed. She signed the notice, and her husband posted it to the registrar. She only, found she was not on the roll when she went to vote.

Mr. Atkinson: How did yo-u wish to rote ?

Dr. -McArthur: I don’t think that is -a right question. We barred it at Masterton. Mr. Atkinson: When the witness is willing?

Dr. (McArthur: Yes, it opens up -a precedent, and it is better Left alone. Ernest 'James Collet, husband of the previous witness, deposed to having posted the notice to the registrar. Leonard Kitchen, postmaster at Trentham, deputy returning officer at the-Trentham booth, said liis count was concluded about ten minutes past seven. He placed the papers in the ballot-box, sealed it up, took it home, and delivered tlie papers next morning. He also took charge of the licensing papers, it being more convenient to have both boxes packed up together. He parted with the papers next morning. The papers could have -been sent to Re-tone on the night of the election.

To Air. 'Skerrett: He had complied with the printed instructions issued. All the papers had been sealed, the electoral, and licensing papers being kept separate. ‘When the boxes wore delivered by him they were in the same condition as when -lie had sealed them t-he .previous night.

Mr. Atkinson : Did you read the Act applying to the duties of deputies?

Witness: Yes. Mr. Atkinson:And you still thought it was right to hang on to the boxes until next dav?

Witness: Yes, 1 thought it- was right. Mr. (Skerrett:l think ho was quite right. That is tho whole bone of contention.

Philip David Davis, the deputy returning officer for the local option poll at Upper Hutt, said (lie sealed up the papers, placed them in the ballot-box, sealed it, .and loft-it in the courthouse all night, Cocking the door and giving Hie key to the constable. He delivered the boxes persona lily the. next morning to the -person who called for them. -He delivered tho boxes to Mr. Webb, who had collected them on a previous occasion.

By 'Mr. (Skerrett: The same practice had been followed at three previous elections. Aland Alexander, a Pet-one resident, sa.id she bad previously been on tlie Parnell roll. She had taken steps to get a transfer, and bad duly, applied for the necessary" form, ftY.ing it in. Mr. Atkinson: What was in llr.* form P Ai.r. Skerrett: Where is the form ? [ never saw it. Witness said he had signed the Form and taken it' to the returning officer, who said it was not correct, ns her name was on the Parnell roll in her maiden name. He said she would have to send and have her namedischarged from the Parnell roll before she could be put on the Hu It roll. Witness said she would be leaving for Auckland in a day or two, and she ilieard no more about ft..

Air. (Skerrett: The interview with tlie registrar vus on Saturday, October ,29tli, at 9 p.m. Schreiber Masked, farmer, Alcaratanawa, deputy 'returning officer for the 'electoral! poll, said be kept the boxes and ballot papers all night. The licensing returning officer definitely took charge of them on the following morning.

WELLINGTON. Jan Ml 5

At the Hutt local option poQ enquiry to-dhry a witness who. was scrutineer at tlie Lower Hutt booth, said lie saw liquor at that booth. . He heard -a tap at the window and saw Hodgins, an hotelkeeper,! A jug of beer was banded in, and five glasses of ’beer at fenst were drunk.

'•Counsel!! for respondents objected to the evidence on the ground that the matter was not specifically mentioned in the petition, and the objection was upheld. Another witness stated that be sa w a bottle brought into the booth. He had no means of ascertaining whether the bottlo contained' whisky, but he smelt liquor in the booth. A third witness deposed that he saw -Pnlmer, a publican, come into tlie booth during tillo_ polling with d hamper, and heard, him remark that there was liquor at the back of the hall if anyone cared to go round for it.. ‘ ■ -: . 1 ' Evidence was given that there had been liquor delivered by a licensee at some of the and that a country hotel had been open during the afternoon of polling day, and intoxicated persons were seen coming out. It was stated by a witness that the returning officer, Mr. Motlics, had said to a Mrs. Burridge that “that,” indicating the licensing ballot box, “had no chance.” Mrs. Burridge, however, ' denied that Mr. Mollies had spoken to her, though she heard him sav that “that had no chance.” Other evidence was that a returning officer had left his booth in charge of another person for a time, and that at the recounting of tlie door had opened and tlie papers were blown about the room in all directions.

The inquiry is to bo resumed tomorrow.