CHINEMURI LICENSING PETITION.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2417, 4 February 1909, Page 5

CHINEMURI LICENSING PETITION.

ADDRESS BY MR. ADAMS. [Press Association.] W'AIHI, Feb. 3. In connection ivitli the petition to upset the Ohinemuri licensing poll, Mr. Adams, for the respondents, addressed the Court. He criticised the petition and said that its move a-t first was evidently to allege charges of dishonesty and theft, and also to allege dishonorable conduct on the part of the returning officer. Those i-eiled charges, he said, had been dropped, and had hopelessly failed as regards the advancement of any proof in support. He also referred to the suspicion as levelled against Mr. ‘Slevin, regarding the keys and the failure, of any direct evidence, and also to statements made by Mr. Robertshaw ivith reference to alleged instructions on the part of Mr. Nathan, prompting perjury on the part of his deputies. Counsel next pointed out that under the Act of 1904 no poll had yet been set aside. Tlie onus, ho continued, of proving an affirmative case ivas upon the petitioners, who had to dhow that the result of the poll ivas affected by the irregularities. Referring to the Akaroa election petition, he said that 10 out of 11 polling places had been closed before tho proper time, thus preventing certain electors from recording their votes. That poll had been A'oided. Mr. Adams reminded the Court that it should bo first satisfied, as .a matter of fact and not of opinion, that the election had not been conducted under the provisions of the existing law before voiding the poll. He also quoted judgments by Judges Williams and Denniston on the matter of irregularities as likely to affect the result of tho poll, and also on the question of evidence counsel referred the Court to “Rogers on Elections” (Page 61) regarding the definition of “result,.” as applied to a poll, ivliieh was not to be confused ivitli tlie matter of the majority. “Maxwell on Statutes” aa'us also quoted as regarded the question of irregularities ou the part of a returning officer, ivhicli

should not be held to affect the result of a poll or to alter the decision of tlie people. The ivhole case for the petitioners, ho said, ivas based on an mnfounded assumption that it was the duty of the returning officer to see that voters voted in secret. Counsel affirmed, in this connection, that sueih duty ivas cast on the voters themselves. If returning officers ive.ro supposed to “dry nurse” voters, then tho uholo method of conducting an election, lie contended, would have to be recast. Counsel then reviewed tlie clauses of the petition at considerable) length, and' finally contended that tho petition- resolved itself into allegations, as made in clauses 8 and 9, re the admittance of more than six A'oters into the booth at one time and on, tho question of secrecy. Tho vital allegations, he submitted, had not been in any way proved by the petitioners. He argued that the case ivas made up of assumption, suggestions, and exaggeration, and that the_cviden.ce in support'ivas unreliable. (Referring to the question of secrecy, counsel pointed out that the contention in the Taheta ease that there was no obligation on tthc part of the returning officer to provide inner compartments hud been upheld. Tho question, therefore, ho argued, of secrecy ivas not iwi irregularity, but ail impropriety on the part of persons at the poll. Quoting Constable Driscoll’s evidence be maintained that tho voting compartments as provided ivere sufficient for the purposes of secrecy, (and voters could vote with secrecy if they liked. He deprecated Constable 'Driscoll’s evidence, and pointed out that he had ample opportunity during his exam-ination-in-chief to make the same statement as ho did on being recalled. Not one witness, he contended, hud been called to slioiv that his or her vote had been, seen. No evidence bad been produced to show lioiv any particular person had voted or that .single licensing papers had been sen. Counsel quoted a lengthy list of witnesses, covering the (period ot alleged difficult times to vote, -showing that each witness had recorded his vote, without delay -or difficulty. In. conclusion, counsel submitted that the case for the petitioners had been hopelessly 'and absolutely shattered. Mr. Adams commenced his address at 9 o’clock, concluding at the adjoinnniont this afternoon. iMr. Skciiett ou behalf of tho petitioners addresses the Court to-morrow.