DUAL VOTING.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 70, 23 March 1915, Page 6

DUAL VOTING.

ONLY A STUPID BLUNDER. ißy Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. A curious case of dual voting came under the notice of the Hamilton Court to-day, when George Stanton Onions, draper, of Cambridge, was charged that at the election held on December 10th last he voted once, and did apply for and fill in another voting paper in his own name. The Returning Officer (Mt. Dixon) explained that the booth at Cambridge at which defendant voted was divided into two sections, one marked "A. to h." and the other "X. to Z." Onions first entered the "A. to ]y." booth, asked for voting papers, filled them in, and placed them in the ballot box. He then noticed the lettering "N. to Z." on the other booth, and, apparently thinking it a check booth, entered, and obtained another set of papers, which he filled in. On leaving the booth Onions apparently became aware that he had done something wrong, for a short time after he returned to the booth, and informed the officer in charge of his action. The prosecutor said he did not consider Onion's net deliberate, but attributed it to a somewhat stupid blunder on defendant's part. Accused declared that his action was due to a misunderstanding. He entered the first booth, and was given voting papers without comment by the officials. Then, as he was going out he noticed the "N. to Z." 'booth, and looked in to see what was going on, when his name was called out loudly, and he was given papers, which he filled in. He thought it must be some method of checking the voting. On returning to business he talked the matter over with several friends, and, realising that his mistake indght have serious consequences, he immediately returned to the booth and informed the Returning Officer of what he had done.

His Worship said a person guilty of a deliberate act of dual voting was liable to two years* imprisonment, but he did not believe defendant in this case intentionally broke the law. The Magistrate added that he could not understand any *nan making such a foolish blunder. Defendant was ordered to pay costs, £ 1 5/4.