BREACH OF THE ELECTORAL ACT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXI, Issue 10314, 5 April 1894, Page 3

BREACH OF THE ELECTORAL ACT.

John Neill was charged at the Christchurch Stipendiary Magistrate’s Court yesterday with having, on Jan. 19 last, signed bis name as witness to a signature upon a form of claim for enrolment on the electoral roll for the City of Christchurch without having seen such signature written, _or without having heard the person signing declare the signature to fce her own and signed in her own name. Mr Stringer appeared to prosecute for tbe Crown. Defendant admitted the offence, but made a statement to the effect that on Jan. 19 a man named Hall came to hia hotel and said a Miss Nicoll, who had bean in defendant’s employ, wished to haveher nameplscedon tbe electoral roll for the City. Defendant asked Hail why he could not attest the signature, and he replied that his name was not on the roll. Hall reassured defendant that there was nothing wrong, and defendant signed it. This was the only signature defendant had witnessed. Mr Stringer said he had no reason to doubt that defendant had committed a breach of the Act unwittingly; he would not press for a heavy penalty. Mr Beetham said it was necessary to be very particular about electoral matters. In the present case ho believed that the defendant had eommittsd a breach of the Act unwittingly. He would inflict a fine of £2, with costa £1 Bs.