BALLOT EVASION

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 February 1942, Page 6

BALLOT EVASION

RESERVISTS’ CARDS REMOVED ALLEGATIONS OF BRIBERY WELLINGTON, February Ip. Tn the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., Henry Joseph August Berthold, a clerk, was charged with wilfully deceiving tne Director of National Service, by removing the ballot cards of Frank Brenden Diederich, Arthur Francis Humphries Sutherland, John Sutherland, Robei t William Masters, Hubert Edward Howard, John Lamont Howard, and Francis Joseph Dwyer from the register. , . . „ “ John Lamont Howard, a musician, faced two charges of offering a bribe lo Eerthold, Arthur Francis Humphries Sutherland, a company director, two similar charges, and Hubert Edward Howard, of Trentham camp, and Frank Brenden Diederich, commission agent, and Francis Joseph Dwyer, manager of the Midlann I Hotel, faced one charge each. I Tn respect of the ballot card ol John Sutherland, it was pointed out by the prosecution that there was no suggestion that John Sutherland was ■personally involved. John Sutheiland had enlisted, and was serving overseas. ~ The case of Eerthold . was called first, ana he pleaded guilty. ’ Mr. H. R. Biss, prosecuting, stated that the charges were laid under I National Service Regulation 56 C. (The defendant Berthold was employled from May, 1940, until Novembei, ' 1940, as a clerk in the National Seii vice Department. The regulations stated that the Reserve consisted ol I persons named and defined. lhei e | was a separate card for every reserivist, kept in steel boxes in sets or aOu leach. When a reservist’s card was I drawn in a ballot, his card was re- | moved and checked, and a blank card i w*as put in to preserve the continuity i of the numbers. It was open to BertIhold, as a lairly-senior clerk, to interIfere with The cards in such a way as • to enable person* eligible tor the bali lot to evade being drawn, because it a card was not on the tray, of course it could not be drawn. Abo'ut July, I 1940, it appeared that Berthold had an interview with the reservist. Hubert j Edward Howard, and the question ol I evading military service was discussed. Berthold and Howard met subseiquently in an hotel bar, where luri ther discussion took place, and it was arranged that, for the PAYMENT OF £5, Berthold should remove Howard’s card from the register, and not replace it until immediately prior to the last ballot. The £5 was in fact paid, and the card was removed, with the result that Howard missed participation in all the ballots until that ol August, 1940. Defendant became acquainted with Howard’s brother, John Lamont Howard, and the question c.f removing his card was also raised, the arrangement being a payment of £5, which was made and the card was removed. Subsequently, J. L. Howard asked Berthold if he could perform the same service for a friend, I his being the alleged offence the charge in respect of which was withdrawn. Also. about July, 1940, defendant approached Francis Joseph Dwyer al the lalter’s hotel, and put up the proposition that he could remove his card. Eerthold was paid £4O, £2O myoi'iF j occasion and later another £2O. When Eerthold approached Dwyer, lie had Dywer's card in ins possession. to convince Dwyer that he could do vvli.-d he said. Later. Dwyer’s card was found to lie missing, and it was replaced in the register and Dwyer was called up in March, 1941. Berthold had admitted, when the card was found to be missing, that he still had the original, and had destroyed it. About July, 1940, Mr. Biss continued, Berthold telephoned A. F. 11. Sutherland, and asked him to meet him. He said that Sutherland, al the time, was entirely a stranger to him. Berthold put up the same proposition as to the others, and Sutherland, according to Eerthold, fell in with it and paid. £3O. Berthold removed Sutherland’s card. Subsequently, Sutherland asked Berthold if he would perform the same service lor his younger brother, John Sutherland, and later paid £3O for the removal of John Sutherland’s name. There was no evidence implicating John Sutherland, and there was no charge against him. He bad, prior to being called up, enlisted for overseas service and was now overseas. About the same time, Berthold met Diedrich, and told him what he could do. Diedrich asked if he could also do it for a friend. R.-W. Masters, and an arrangement was made for the removal of both cards, the total payments eventually being £lB. Berthold removed both cards and gave them to Diedrich, but recovered them later and returned them to the Department. Prior to the ballot of August, 1940. they were inserted in their proper places. On November 12, Berthold was transferred to another Department. He had then all the cards in his possession, except Dwyer’s, and they were' handed by him to another member of the National Service 1 Department, who returned them to their'proper places. The result of the meddling was that, with the exception of Dwyer, ail the men charged escaped participation in two Territorial and two overseas ballots. In Dwyer’s case, the loss of his card was revealed when it was required in connection with a trip he made overseas. He escaped participation in two Territorial ballots, and one overseas ballot. REMANDED FOR SENTENCE | Counsel for Berthold, Mr. W. G. L. j Mcllish, said that at first glance it was I difficult to understand why a man should do a thing like Berthold had done, but when the position was exI amined it was readily understandable. .Accused was a Government servant, earning roughly £6/5/- per week, and had a wife and six young children ranging from 11 years of age downwards.' His rent was £2 per week, and on the balance of £4/5/- he endeavoured to clothe and bring up his young family. He was, in fact in a desperate position financially. He was in the hands of money-lenders who were pressing him. He did not know where to turn, and it was suggested to him in the course of conversation that it would be worth money to him if he could get certain cards. That pointed the way. Counsel could only ask the Court to consider the fact that he was tempted and fell, and to consider the financial proposition put to him. which was the underlying cause of his taking false steps. Mr. Stout remanded 'Berthold lor a week, for sentence. John Lamont Howard . pleaded guilty to two charges, and also a charge of failing to report for military "service. Counsel, Mr. R. I. M. Sutherland, said-that Howard was an objector to military service. He was originally approached by Berthold, and clutched at the straw when Berthold offered to keep his name, out of the ballot for a period. Knowing that Berthold could do it, he approached him also on behalf of a friend. Accused was before the Court some time ago on a charge of failing to report, but he had changed his mind and opinions with regard to the performance of military duties, and now expressed willingness to undergo military service. He had expressed that opinion before he knew' the present series of charges were nending. , , „ , Howard was remanded lor a week for sentence. The case of Diedrich was adjourned for a fortnight, accused being ill in I

bed ,and his counsel, Mr. F. W. Ongley, engaged in another case elsewhere. Herbert Edward Howard was next called. Counsel, Mr. J. A. Scott, entered a plea of not guilty. Mr. Biss mentioned that at the time of the alleged offence. Howard was under 21 years of age, and was not liable for overseas service, but by the removal of his card he escaped liability for the Territorial ballots. (Proceeding).