CARDS FOR ELECTORS

Northern Advocate, 26 July 1935, Page 8

CARDS FOR ELECTORS

LOCAL BODY POLLS

FINDINGS OF S.M. ONE CASE FAILS. UNSOLICITED ADVICE CRUX. CONVICTION IN SECOND CASE. t Special to "Northern Advocate” J AUCKLAND, This Day. Of the five persons prosecuted in the Police Court on July 12 on charges of interfering with electors while on their way to the election booths with the intention of influencing their vote —three prosecutions have arisen -out of incidents at the municipal elections in May—reserved judgment was delivered in two of the cases by Mr W. R. McKean, S.M., in the Police Court this morning. The distribution of cards bearing the names of candidates in the local bodies’ election outside booths on the day of the poll, was the reason for the action taken by the police on May 8. Mr McKean said the .provisions of the Local Elections and Polls Act, under which the defendants were charged, were considered by Mr Justice Blair in a case in 1933. The action was designed, the Judge said, to ensure that any elector going to the polling bodth or in a polling booth should have free opportunity to vote for any candidate and be free from unsolicited advice as to how he should cast his vote. The judge held that to offer a printed slip containing candidates’ names, whether it was accepted by an elector or not and whether it influenced him or not, was a breach of the provisions of the statute.

In the case of John William Rickman, for whom Mr F. W. Schramm appeared, the magistrate said Mr Rickman was seated at a table inside a gate leading to a polling booth. He had on a table copies of electoral rolls and bundles of printed cards. He would ask electors whether they had their roll numbers, and if they had not, he wculd look up the number on the roll, write it on a slip of paper and hand it to the elector, together with one of the printed cards containing names of candidates. It was submitted by Mr Schramm that on these facts no offence had been disclosed.

“That the defendant was seated at a table to which electors went, I think, makes his position different from that of the man who walks up and down distributing cards in front of a polling booth or places himself near the entrance of a booth and hands cards to electors,” said the magistrate.

Mr McKean considered that in the case of Robert Purdy (Mr J. Perry), this defendant did not hand printed cards to any electors. He merely wrote the elector’s roll number on a slip of paper and handed it over. Sometimes electors would ask if they could have a card and sometimes they would take a card without asking. Purdy’s table was decorated with his party’s colours. It might be said that the reason for this man being -*at the table was obvious, and the display of the printed cards was at any rate an invitation to electors to take them. “The difference; between an invitation that is implied and one that is expressed may not be great,” continued Mr McKean. “There is, however, a considerable difference between seeking advice and having it thrust on you. To pehmit a person to take something that he asks for or to allow him to take something that you want him to take cannot be an interference with that person unless the meaning of that word is unnaturally extended. It is the unsolicited advice from the supporter of any candidate, from which, according to Mr Justice Blair’s decision, the elector is to be freed. There was on the part of Purdy no stopping of electors, no urging nor advising and no proffering of printed slips. What was done did not amount to an interference with an elector.”

The charge against Purdy was dismissed. Rickman was convicted.

“In view of the fact that the practice of having a table with a man presenting cards has been in existence for a number of years, I do not propose to inflict a penalty,” said Mr McKean. “Defendant will be convicted and ordered to pay costs.

Mr Perry then mentioned the charge against John Samuel Russell. The Magistrate regretted that he had overlooked this case, and adjourned it for a week.

Mr Perry said that Russell’s case was different, as he had not handed out tickets.

Mr McKean: “The practice seems to be a harmless one. The returning officer considers that it is of some assistance to him and his staff. I don’t know who is responsible for this flutter.” (Laughter>. Mr Perry: “I think it was caused by a certain Independent candidate.” “The system has been going on for so long that the people think they have to get their numbers from the men v at the tables,” was the magistrate’s final remark.