GREY BY-ELECTION.

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 November 1918, Page 2

GREY BY-ELECTION.

ALLEGED PERSONATION. CASE BEFORE THE COURT., CHARGE DISMISSED. At tiire Magistrate’s Court tins illuming, Oeiore Mr. d. E. Wilson, *xm., a Case arising out of tlieG-rey by-election was neard, when tue rcmde pTuceeueu against Joim \VTiiiuiu rioyie, on a, cnarge of persona,i.uii, uy applying for a voting paper in tiie name of another person, to wit, doiin Doyle, Hospital street. Grey-mouth, miner, a,t a by-election held, for: the purpose of electing a memberi of Parliament to serve--'in the House of Representatives for the Electoral aistrict of Drey, under the provisions', of the' Legislature Act, 11)08, ah'd its amendments, being an uiUiCtable offence.

J. Mclndoe, Returning Officer and Registrar of Electors, Grey, stated that' a by-election was held on the 2*9th of May, and one of the polling, booths was the boarding house at Middle Flat, where E, I. Lord had freeih appointed deputy returning officer, and after the election he himself lied made a scrutiny of the rolls used .by thy various deputies for the ' purpose of checking double voting and found that 566—John Boyle, Hospital, Grey,mouth, miner, had apparently ; voted at Booth No. 9 and at Booth No. 27. He stated there had been‘. no application for enrolment by Joh\i Boyle since 1914, consequently defeiidant was not on the roll.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hannan: The Deputy Returning Officer at Middle Flat reported the matter to him the morning after the election, and he told him to put it in writing, which he did. John Boyle stated that he was an inmate of the Grey River Hospital since 1908, and previous had been a miner. He had voted at last election and in 1914.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hannan: About twelve months ago there was a man of the same name as himself at the Hospital. Edward Iveagh Lord, Collector, stated that he was the deputy returning officer at Middle Flat in May last, and during the day defendant had come into the polling booth. Nobody voted until about 4.30, and Smith, scrutineer for Holland. told him the names as they came in the door. As the defendant came in the door Smith said “John Boyle,” and on looking up the roll he saw “John Boyle, miner. Hospital.” and as he came to the table he said “John Boyle, miner, Hospital,” and gave him a voting paper, and he recorded the vote and left the booth, after which the officer was busy for some time. In about 30 or 40 minutes Boyle returned oprl stated that when he was in the hosmtal. some time previous to the time when Mr. Webb resigned in 1917, there was a man of the same name in the hospital, and after voting, while discussing the position with a friend in the camp, he thought that there might be some doubt as to whether it wag his vote or not. Being doubtful, he wanted witness to return the voting paper, but witness stated that that was impossible, and asked him where he was enrolled, and he said; “Never in the Dominion,” but that while in the hospital his iriends had approached him and stated that they would put him on the roll. Accused then stated that he could not be on any roll at all, saying he came from New South Wales, where it was unnecessary to sign any enrolment forms. He said that the police had asked him if he were on the roll and he seemed upset about the whole concern, which it appeared he did not understand. Witness then reported the matter to Mr Molndoe-

Cross-examined by Mr. Hannan, witness replied that he asked the defendant where he had signed the enrolment form.

Constable Baird, Blackball, stated that from instructions received he interviewed the defendant on the 13th of July last and asked him if he had voted at Middle Flat at the recent by-election, and he replied “Yes.” Asked for hie reason for voting, deceased stated that he went into the booth and inquired if his name! “John Boyle, Hospital,” was on the roll, and he was told that it was. He therefore had his vote and went to his hut. When he got there he remembered the name of the other John Boyle at the hospital, and went back and informed the deputy that probably he was not entitled to a vote. H© had been in New Zealand since May, 1915, and he had never voted at any ©lection in New Zealand. He had not applied for enrolment, and thought that someone had put him on when vhee, was to’ tl|e' hospital. John “Wilifaijf Boyle (defendant), “that the middle name had seldom been used by him. the'only occasion being on his enrolment in the Expeditionary

Forces. H© had been at Roa about three years and had resided in New South Wales all the time previous and - for some ten years after he became eligible had only . voted on on© occasion. He had signed no application form. He was in the hospital prior to the last election, and on the day of the the 29th May he had gone to the booth and asked if his name -was on ~ the roll, and found “John Boyle, Boarding-house, Reef ton,” to which he replied: ’That wouldn’t be me; I’ve never been up that way.” They then came to the name “John Boyle, Grey River Hospital,” and Smith, the scrutineer, said “Yes, that is he.” Witness then received his papers and voted. He left the booth and while talking with some friends, he suddenly thought of the did man in the hospital and went back to the booth and told them about the old man ; n the hospital. While there he was asked where he signed to get on the roll, and the previous witnesses’ statement of what happened when he returned to the booth was correct. He thought the scrutineer would take the paper out when he found out it was not right, and he believed that it was his name on the roll at the time he voted. That was his second vote since his 21st year.

Cross-examined by Police : He did not know when he entered the booth that the name John Boyle, Hospital, was on the roll. He had himself taken no action to get enrolledHe thought that the police enrolled the people as in Australia, Cross-examined by Mr. Hannan: He was about 100 yards away from the polling booth when he discovered that he had probal'y made a mistake.

His Worship said that he thought that it appeared that the defendant was not well versed* in the ways of elections, and it was not a case for the higher Court. He thought that the scrutineer was at fault, and that the defendant’s conduct after voting confirmed his statements. Under the oircum stances ’the information would Tm dismissed.