Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  


    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Temperance and Prohibition in New Zealand

Decisions of Magistrates

page 85

Decisions of Magistrates

The Poll of 1899: The Stipendiary Magistrate at Oamaru declared the poll in the electorate void. The Executive of the Alliance published the statement that in their opinion the decision was contrary to law.

No issue was carried in Bruce. A demand was made for a recount, because it was believed that at least Reduction had been carried there; but this right was forbidden by the magistrate. Even the Dunedin Trade Review, commenting on the case, acknowledged that if a recount had been granted, Reduction would have been carried by fifty-four votes. The report of the Alliance for 1900 intimates that ‘the electors of Bruce were robbed of the fruit of their victory by official bungling and the muddling in the law courts.’

The Poll of 1902: In New Plymouth the Stipendiary Magistrate permitted the sharp practice by which licenses were practically transferred for much greater distances than the Act of 1895 permitted.

At Blenheim a license was granted in lieu of one dropped at a distance of forty miles away.

The Alliance Report for 1903 comments on the ‘remarkable decisions’ of the magistrates in a hotel case, and of another magistrate in a case at Maungaturoto; and proceeds: ‘Perhaps the most remarkable decision ever recorded by a New Zealand magistrate was that … which … voided the Newtown Local Option Poll. His decision is beyond comment.’