VOTERS’ TICKETS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 231, 13 July 1935, Page 3

VOTERS’ TICKETS

AUCKLAND CITY ELECTIONS. ONE CONVICTION ENTERED. (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, July 12. Breaches of the Local Elections and Polls Act, 1925, were alleged against several men who appeared on summons before Mr W. It. McKean, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court. The charges arose out of the municipal elections held at Auckland on May 8. It was explained by Mr Hubble, who conducted the prosecutions, that the cases to be heard were not identically the same, but were very similar, and all arose out of the municipal elections held at Auckland on May 8. The charges had been laid under Section 44a of the Act, and the defendants were liable to a fine not exceeding £2O. There had been a case in New Zealand in 1933 in which Mr Justice Blair had held, when the case had been taken to him on appeal, that the giving out °f printed slips containing candidates’ names was a breach of the statute. In the case which had been considered by Mr Justice Blair the slips had carried an instruction: “Vote for your interests and support the following candidates.” It was contended that the cases before the Court, although somewhat different from the case quoted, showed breaches of the Act. The first case dealt with was that in which Ernest Cross was charged with “interfering with several electors while they were on their way to an election booth.” Defendant was represented by Mr Hall Skelton. Words on Slips. Mr Hubble' said that in this ease slips had been given out carrying the words: “City Council. Alfred Hall Skelton.’’ It was contended that the slips had been given out to influence voters in voting for Hall Skelton, and that, he submitted, came within Mr Justice Blair’s judgment.

For the defence, Mr Hall Skelton said that in the case quoted by Mr Hubble the printed slip had set out how the voter was to vote, and who he was to vote for. That ticket had definitely carried the advice, “Vote tor.” His own ticket had in no way influenced the person how to vote. It merely stated that there was such a person as Hall Skelton standing for election. With so many candidates standing, a man at the bottom of the list might easily have been missed. In 1923 Mr Poynton, S.M., had held that a card headed “Citizens’ Ticket,” and carrying the names of Citizens’ candidates could not influence a peison how to vote, and had disulissed a prosecution brought at Auckland. The case before the Court, he contended, did not go so far and did not come within the section of the Act or of Mr Justice Blair’s judgment. The Magistrate said he thought Mr Justice Blair’s judgment made the position clear. The wording of the ticket was not of importance. If such a ticket were handed to a person it was perfectly obvious that it was a suggestion that that person should yote for the candidate named. It seemed clear that the case came within the Act. He would have to hold that an offence had been committed. “This sort of thing has been going on for years at the municipal elections in Auckland,” remarked the Magistrate. “Apparently this is not the first time a case of the kind has been before this Court.” Test Cases. On Mr Hubble saying that the cases were test ones, and that he was not pressing for a heavy penalty, the Magistrate convicted the defendant, and ordered him to pay Court costs and solicitor’s fee. In the case in which Robert Purdie (Mr Terry) was charged with “interfering with electors on election day,” Detective Mclean said Purdie had been seated at a table on the footpath outside the entrance to ithe Trades Hall polling-booth. Defendant had on the table a number of tickets, some showing the names of candidates representing the Citizens’ party. For the defendant, Mr Terry said that the case was fundamentally different from the previous one, in which tickets had been handed out among the voters. Mr Poynton, iS.M., had expressed the opinion that it was actually an assistance and not a hindrance for voter to have a card handed to him. The Citizens’ committee, counsel explained, had set up a table outside the booth. The colours of the party had been openly displayed and no move or signal had been made to get intending voters to come to the table. The men at the tables had electoral rolls before them and also a bundle of tickets carrying the names of Citizens’ candidates. Intending voters, if they so desired, could go to the table and inquire as to the Citizens’ candidates. He submitted that there had been no interference with voters, and that the most defendant had done was to hand out the tickets when they had been wanted'. Defendant, in evidence, said those who came to the table either asked for tickets or picked one up themselves without asking. He did not hand out any tickets unless they were asked for. Holding that the facts in this case were slightly different from the previous one, and that there was no evidence to contradict the avidence of defendant, the Magistrate reserved his decision.