Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
If I am not mistaken, both the Customs Act and the Inland Revenue Act furnish many cases where the burden is put upon the defendant of proving that he had no intention of .defrauding the revenue laws. That is done in the public interest. It is necesary that the public revenue should be protected. The facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the man who is accused. This is a case in which we have something quite as>
important as the protection to the revenue, that is, the protection of the secrecy of the ballot. The deputy returning officer has the law placed in his hands weeks before hand, and if lie sees tit to put a mark of identification upon the ballot, it is not imposing a serious burden upon him to ask that he shall show some good reason to the court why he contravened the law in that way, and in the absence of some good reason, it should be held that he put it there for the purpose of identification.