ELECTION CHARGE

Hokitika Guardian, 23 May 1933, Page 2

ELECTION CHARGE

ALLEGED INTERFERENCE

GREYMOUTH, May 23

At the Oreymouth Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr W. Meldrum, S'. M., Thomas George Hayden 22 was charged that, on May 3, at Taylorville, on the clay .of the Brunner Borough elections, lie did interfere with electors, while on their way to the polling booth, with the intention of influencing them or advising them as to their votes, The information was laid under the Polls Act,. 1.92*5. Mr T. F. Brosnan appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. The ticket was printed on pink paper, and was headed: ‘‘Vote for your own interests, and support the following candidates: Power Board, W. Carse. Mayor, F. Williams. Borough Council: R. Fordham, J. Pender, W. Guthberlet, T. Morgan, G. Kennedy, J. H. Roberts.”

The S.M. said that he had no doubt in believing the evidence of the informant, Smithers, as against that of defendant. Smithers’ evidence was corroborated by the statement which Morgan gave Constable Houston, although -defendant had gone back in Court on what was in that statement. But that did not, in itself, dispose of the case. The charge was laid under Section 44, sub-scction (a), which made it an offence to “in any way interfere with any elector, either in a polling-booth or on his way thereto, with the intention of influencing or advinjug him as to Ida vote.” It was quite ' blear, op the eyMflnoCi thflt do* fondant had gone to the booth and stayed there, and that he had itt His possession 50 tickets with the names of candidates on them, no doubt with ■the idea of handing them to electors before they voted, ard there was' no doubt that lie did hand one of the tickets to Smithers. He said nothing— Smithers admitted that—as lie handed him tlie ticket, and Smithers went on jnto the booth anil exercised his vote. He was not- influenced, in any way, by th leaflet. Tlie question ■ was whether this was an interference with the elector, with the deliberate intention of influencing or . advising him as to his vote. Had defendant spoken to Smithers, and offered him anyj advice as to the way lie . should vote, then, probably, the sub-section under which the charge was laid might be field to have been infringed; but nothing whatever was said to him, and- he merely handed the paper to Sniithers. Mr Brosnan had pointed out that the interference should be something active, and, hold defendant stopped Smithers on his way in, and urged him in any way as to the way he should vote, that might be held to be active interference. Mr Meldrum expressed the opinion that the information should have been laid under subjection (b), which dealt with the distribution of voting-papers, or imita. tion voting-papers- The information, however, was not laid under that subseotioß, ...

The Sergeant' said that was not done, because the paper did not resemble a voting-paper. The S,M. said that he did not gee that Smithers was in any way interfered with or stopped, He was hut spoken to, and was not influenced, nor did defendant admit attempting to influence him by saying anything to him. He merely handed Smithers the paper. Had the information been laid under sub-section (b), there would have been some evidence to support it. As it was, added Mr Meldruni, he did .not see that an offence had been committed. There was no active' interference with the elector, and, he was not obstructed in any way. He did not think the charge had been proved and it would be dismissed.

‘The secretary fully outlined the position as at regarded the funds for this purpose, and the allocation jof relief.

, Mr Menzies ga id that it rppeared to be more a question ob assistance to diggers who were incapacitated bo that they could mot do a full dav’g work. He thought that the others would pvefeve to do a day’s work in return for the subsidy. If power were given to help necessitous cases, the position might be met. Mr McCabe said that th e subsidised wages appeared to be the general practice throughout New Zealand. In Christchurch a benevolent fund had been instituted for .necessitous cases. The president said that only in «. few cases had their money been given out to cases of distress. The general principle was by way of s nbsidy.

The secretary said that the Association had never yet seen a mam stuck. Mr Menzies moved that the present system of subsidised labour .be continued, but that a, sum. be set aside to be called a benevolent fund from which assistance may be given to extremely necessitous cases.

Mr Armstrong seconded the amendment which was ultimately carried. The president, paid tribute to the onerous duties of the secretary, and it was finally decided that an increase be mad.p> -in his honorarium, the president stating that the honorarium In the past W' n s not in proportion to the work entailed.