28 and 72. He submitted that these events, considered either singly or cumulatively, constituted irregularities and breaches of the law which warranted a voiding of the poll taken for each of these polling divisions and, ultimately, for the constituency as a whole. On that evidence, which was uncontradicted by any other evidence, the revelations of irregularities were legion. Below is a litany of them with references to the relevant sections of the Representation of the People Act. c-; ; 1. Taking of poll commenced at approximately 2.15 p.m. instead of at 7 a.m. contrary to section 33 (1). 2. Ballots accepted and counted fiom electors who rehsed to immerse the appropriate digit (finger) in the electoral ink contrary to section 38 (2). 3. Ballots were cast in two separate ballot boxes, the first of which was issued to a presiding officer who failed to take up her duties at the appointed time and the second of which was issued to the duly appointed substitute presiding officer for the same polling division. 4. Poll closed shortly after 5.30 p.m. after which a total of 370 ballots contained in a substitute ballot box were counted for the 3 candidates who offered themselves for election. In the circumstances 370 electors would have voted within a time span of approximately 3 hours 15