ELECTION SEQUEL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22412, 7 May 1936, Page 15

ELECTION SEQUEL

PERSONATION CASE DEALER FOUND GUILTY JURY RECOMMENDS LENIENCY A verdict of guilty, with a recommendation that leniency should be extended, was returned by the jury in the Supreme Court yesterday, after considering the case of James Francis Brad}', a second-hand dealer, who was alleged to have committed the offence of personation under the Electoral Act, 1927, on the day of tho general election last year. It was alleged by the Crown that accused voted in the morning at St. Benedict's Hall, and then went to a booth at the Town Hall and applied for a second set of voting papers. The case came before Mr. Justice Callan, Mr. R. Meredith appearing for the Crown, and Mr. Elwarth for accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. El warth said that Brady was so much under the influence of liquor that he did not realise what ho was doing when he applied for the voting papers. Although it had been shown that accused had voted at St. Benedict's Hall on the morning of election day, he had no recollection of having done so. lie was in such a helpless state of intoxication on that day that he did not recollect either voting or being in the vicinity of the Town Hall during the afternoon. Accused Gives Evidence Brady, in evidence, stated that after leaving home he went into a hotel about nine o'clock and remained there for a long time. Ho was with another man and they had some six or seven handles of beer. Accused added that he had a slight recollection of going down Symonds Street after leaving the hotel, and also remembered being outside the booth at St. Benedict's Hall. He believed that he went into the booth, but had no recollection of voting there, although he remembered having some argument with a man who ordered him to the door. After leaving the hall, he recalled going to the Town Hall by motor-car and arriving there about 1.30 p.m. He could not remember being at the Town Hall about six o'clock or being put out of the building. Robert James Freeman, a carpenter, stated that he met Brady about 10 a.m. on election day, and remained in a hctel with him for about two hours. Accused was a bit jolly when they left. William Blakley, a cleaner, said he saw Brady outside the Town Hall about 2 p.m. He appeared to be suffering from the effects of alcohol. Absence of Intent Claimed

Mr. Elwarth submitted that when accused was in the Town Hall there was a complete absence of any intent on his part to apply for a second vote. If the jury came to the conclusion that accused was in such a hopelessly muddled condition when applying for voting papers at the Town Hall that he had completely forgotten that he had already voted, then it would be entitled to find him not guilty. Mr. Meredith said the whole case came down to the question of drunkenness, and the evidence showed that Brady was under the influence of liquor, but was not drunk. Although he had stated that he was incapable of making up his mind about anything, he had recorded his votes.

His Honor said it had been argued that drink and drunkenness excused accused's action, but this drunkenness could only be a defence if the jury was\satisfied that it was so great that the fact of his having voted at St. Benedict's Hall was blotted out of his mind when he applied for fresh voting papers at the Town Hall. After the jury's verdict had been given accused was remanded for sentence.