TORE IT UP

Northern Advocate, 20 February 1926, Page 8

TORE IT UP

WOMAN AND A BALLOT PAPER. '. AN OFFENCE ALLEGED. An echo of the election yv&% heard in the Magistrate's Court, Christchurch, on Monday, when a Linwood widow (publication of whose name was suppressed in the meantime), pleaded not guilty to having fraudulently destroyed a ballot paper. •Evidence given by James Stewart, deputy-returning officer for the Avon electorate, was that on election day he was in charge of the booth in Matson's road, where he saw the defendant. As a matter of fact, his attention was drawn to her by someoae saying that she hail destroyed a ballot paper. Witness toM her that before she could be' supplied ■with a fresh one she would have to return the mutilated paper. | However, she refused this, and walked i out of the booth with the paper in her i hand. ! "SHE WAS STUBBORN." Witness followed her out, and again requested her to give it up. Still she refused, and in the presence of a policeman, tore the paper up, and threw it at witness' feet. "She continued to tear it up even after I had given her every opportunity to give it up,'' he said. "... I picked up the pieces later, and put them in an envelope." When cress-examined by Mr. J. B. Batchelor, solicitor for the wttman, Stewart' said defendant seemed to become very stubborn? and appeared to have the idea that he simply wanted the ballot paper to see who she had voted for. But he had told her that if she wanted to she could cross put the name of the other candidate, and so make the ballot paper informal. Apparently, she had crossed out the name of the wrong candidate; and had torn the paper. "I saw the woman keep tearing itup even after she had been warned not to," said Constable McLennah, Linwood, when giving evidence. SUBMISSIONS FOR DEFENCE. On the evidence before the Court, Mr Batchelor submitted there was no case for the widow, to answer. However, if the Bench wanted to hear his client he would put Ker. in the witness-box, although she suffered from '' nerves.'' Certainly, he went on, she had-destroy-ed-the paper, but she had not destroyed it fraudulently, as she was charged. The Bench decided to hear the woman's storv.In evidence, the woman said she had made a mistake in voting, and had twisted up her paper. She was ignorant of having committed an offence, • ipd denied that she threw the paper in pieces on the ground in front of the deputy-returning officer. i The Bench, after deliberation, decid-I .\ scl to adjourn the case till Friday, so I they could "think it over." THE CHARGE DISMISSED _____ .1 CHRISTCHURCH, Thia Day. ( Sitting in the Magistrate's Court \ festeiday, two Justices of the 'Peace, i lismissed a case against a woman; J who was charged* with destroying a Dallot paper at the last general -. ( election. The Bench held that the; i jallot paper was the property of the ! foter until it was deposited in the'.' sallot box, and therefore the voter had, J i right to do what he or she likedi'i .vith it. However if the authorities. ' leemed the case to be of such im- ' jortanee that they considered it should , 3e tested by a magistrate, the charge; vould be dismissed without prejudice; . :o further action. —Press Assn.