MR RICHARDSON'S TROUBLES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 210, 4 September 1900, Page 2

MR RICHARDSON'S TROUBLES.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—When I read the. very peculiarly worded paragraph referring to my imprisonment in your journal last nlgnt, I felt more than a little indignant. You speak of my having made a breach of the Electoral Act. This I absolutely deny. I was charged with getting the signature of Margaret Jane Brady without seeing her sign it. If anyone can now prove I got that signature I will give £10 to the Charitable Aid Board, which is twice the amount I was fined. I am sorry that you did not publish the letter I sent on last Wednesday, for it gave the reasons I refused to pay the fine. They were those, viz., that I was not guilty/, that I had an unfair trial and had been refused an adjournment; and that the punishment, even if I had been guilty, was unduly severe. Now, to be idle one.month would' have inflicted a penalty on me of £20 instead of £5, besides the indignity of having to tnix with the criminal classes and break stones for a month. You know as well as I do I could quite easily have collected the money at the meetings I 'hold; but refused to do .so on the principle that in the public interests no public spirited citizen, should submit quietly to magisterial injustice without making the most obstinate protest he could to it. This I have done, and shall continue to do in no measured terms for some time to come. Now, Mr Editor, can you tell me why the . prosecution ..did . not call Miss Brady, who took the document from the hands of a stout built young man of a dark complexion, and got her mother to sign it, and then took it back to him? Next, how it came to past) that the Registrar pent to Mrs Brady afterwards to examine her on the point as to whether the gentleman who3e signature was attached had seen her sign? Then, when in my cross-examination of the lady in' the witness box I found this out, and. demanded" an adjournment, why did Mr Brabant refuse it? Then why should Mr Brabant, who fined Mr Glover for putting On "fictitious" names on the roll, which he admitted in passing sentence was a ■ very grave offence, only Inflict a penalty 'of 10/ and costs, while supposing I was guilty of the offence charged to me, it was only a very minor breach of the law, in which a fine of 1/ would have been ample. How came it about that he fined me £5 and costs, while on the same morning he had fined Mr Mullins, who had pleaded guilty to a similar charge, the sum of £3 and costs? Are the public to be educated up to the point, that when summoned to answer to any charge, that it will pay them to plead guilty so as to get a minimum fine imposed? If so, all I want to say is they will be along time before they brin~ me up to such a standard. Now, "in conclusion, what I am concerned about most is: Am I to be allowed to fight out these flagrant inequalities of sentences alone unaided by the Press of Auckland, who sometimes since I have been here have informed the people that the Press was the bulwark of the people's liberties. All I have to say is that so far it has not been much of Tg bulwark to me. I suppose time will show what it will be in the future Anyway, if the above sentences would not warrant any public comments on their part, to my mind it would be difficult to imagine what sort of magisterial outrages would meet with their disapproval —I am, etc., WILLIAM RICHARDSON.

(To the Editor.)

■ Sir.—Although Mr Richardson has again taken his place amongst us through the good offices of his friends, how does it come to pass that in his case he was fined £5 and costs, while Mr Glover for a graver offence, was only fined 10/' and costs? The magistrate in. delivering judcm?nt in the latter case referred to the fact that to put a fictitious name on the roll was a much graver offence than to get a signature without actually seeing it signed. By. the evidence adduced it is clear that Mr Richardson never even pot the signature which he was accused of getting; but at the most had signed a half completed form, the other part of the form, after getting Into some other person's hands, was filled up in another handwriting. It was unfortunate in my opinion that the adjournment applied for by Mr Richardson was refused by the Bench. Thus the unusually heavy fine of £5 was imposed, which Mr Richardson feeling the injustice of, preferred to go to prison rather than pay. A similar fate may befall others, and I ask that you will be good enough to allow the above to appear in your columns.—l am, etc crazßN.