AN EXEMPLARY FINE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 283, 27 November 1914, Page 6

AN EXEMPLARY FINE.

breach of legislature ACT. At the Court this morning Alan Alexander Cuthhertson was charged that on or about October 29th, 1011, at Whangamomona, he did sign Ins name as,a witness to a signature puiporting to he that of Marion Anderson upon a claim for enrolment on the Stratford Electoral Roll without having seen such signature written by the said Marion Anderson or without hearing the said Marion Anderson declare that the signature was in her own handwriting, and that the name so signed was her own proper name. Mr P. Thomson appeared on behalf of the informant, William Jesse Heeve, Registrar of Electors, and defendant was represented by Mr J. R. L Stanford, who pleaded not guilty. Defendant was also charged similarly in respect of a claim by John Phil, lips. A j»lea of guilty was entered. A plea of not guilty was enterea respect of a similar charge respecting a c i a im for enrolment by William

Blah*. ; Mr Thomson, in opening his case, said that the information was laid; under section 84 of the Legislature ' Act, 1908, wherein it is stated that, every person is liable for each offence to a fine not exceeding, £SO. The claim to vote is, said Counsel, dealt with under section 41 of the same Act, and in section 42 it was laid down that every person making any claim, application or declaration unde- this Act shall sign the same m tlio presence of a Registrar, or the Postmaster of the district. The claim shall be signed, or if claimant cannot write >» attended by an authorised person. William Jesse Reeve, Registrar of Electors, gave evidence in the -'.ace of William Blair. He said he knew defendant, and that he was not authorised under any Act to canvass oi ‘attest signatures. William Blair, of Miranda Streoo, Stratford, an old-age pensioner, gave evidence. In reply to Counsel >or plaintiff as to what means he took to ho put on the roll said that Defendant asked him in the Empire Hotel if lib was on the roll, and on his replying “No;” Defendant produced a paper. Defendant asked him if he could write. He said: “Yes, but. not not very well;” as ho was very shaky that morning; Defendant then guided his hand hut lie could not tell whether ho was writing or not. Cross-examined by Mr Thomson; . Have you been'signing your name up , to the present? , , Defendant! No, not for a good

while. ' By Mr Stanford : Defendant and Jack Mills both say defendant asked you if you could write. Witness; I only say I could not recollect it. Mr Stanford, for the defence, said Cuthbertson was an elector in the district, and in ithe course of conversation on the 14th October in the bar of the Empire Hotel it was ascertained that Blair was not on the rolls. Defendant had forms in his pocket, and Defendant asked witness if he could write. When , a pen was given him he said he was shaky, whereupon Defendant held the pen and wit-

ness put his hand over it. He then asked if, as was Defendant’s practice; it was his signature and he replied, “Yes.” Mr Stanford then argued as to the question of a person being “able to write.” Further, he argued 'that Defendant had no guilty knowledge, which was essential in such an information. He submitted that Defendant did everything a careful man should do. Defendant then fdled in the form and as witness said he was too shaky he'asked defendant to “guide his hand.” By Mr Stanford. Did you ask Blair if that was his handwriting.. Defendant : Yes, I always ask tliat question 1 . Mr Stanford: Have you put many on the rolls? Defendant: Yes; over a hundred. J ■ 7 By Mr Thomson: You say you always ask claimants if that is their handwriting? Did you ask Marion Anderson. Defendant: No; I did not. The S.M,: You take hundreds of signatures. ’ Defendant: This year I must lave taken over one hundred. jAck Mills, barman at the Empire Hotel, gave corroborative evidence as to his being present when unu. signed the form on the morning of October 14th'. H 6 said defendant got hold of - the pen and Blair put his hand over the top and defendant wrote. The S.M.: The defence sot up as that where a man nan B Jom iifs natrio that is sufficient to make it unnecessary that a mark should he put >md the formalities complied with under the Act carried out, but’ if a person holds a man’s hand or writes his name while he touches the pen it is not sufficient. In this particular case defendant may have misread the meaning of the Act and may have ■ thought he was complying with the requirements of the Act. Whilst 1 find him guilty, I will, in this ease, only inflict a nominal fine of Is. In the case of Marion Anderson and John Phillips, defendant was fined £lO in each case and costs, defendant being given until the 18th December to pay the money.