Take the case of one man shooting another. If he points a revolver at him and pulls the trigger, he Is presumed to have intended to shoot the other man. The deputy returning officer ought to be in tbe same position. He actually commits an overt act, he puts a mark upon the ballot which he ought not to put
there. Is it not fair to assume that he did it with that intent? Why should not the, onus of proving that he had not that intent be upon mm? When the deputy returning officer places his mark he actually commits an act which he cannot commit legally, and it ought to be assumed that he would know that it would have the result of identifying that ballot.