GUIDANCE FOR VOTERS

Taranaki Daily News, 13 July 1935, Page 9

GUIDANCE FOR VOTERS

HOW FAR IS IT LEGAL? . AUCKLAND POLLING INCIDENTS. • SEQUEL IN THE POLICE COURT. CHARGES HEARD AS TEST CASES. By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. Breaches of the Local Elections and Polls Act, 1925, were alleged against, a number of men Who appeared on summons before Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., in the Police Court. The charges arose out of the municipal elections at Auckland on May 8. It was explained by Mr. Hubble, who conducted the prosecutions, that the cases to be heard Were not identically the same, but were very similar and all afose out of the elections on May 8. The charges had been laid under Section 44a of the Act and the defendants were liable to fines not exceeding £2O. There had been a case in New Zealand in 1933 in wl..ch Mr. Justice Blair had held, when thi. case had been taken to him on appeal, that the giving out of printed slips containing candidates’ names was a breach of the Statute. In the case which had been considered by Mr. Blair the slips had carried the instruction: “Vote for your interests and support the following candidates.” It was contended that the cases before the court, although somewhat different from the case quoted, showed breaches of the The first case dealt with was that in which Ernest Cross was charged with “interfering with, several electors while they were on their way to an election booth.” Cross was represented by Mr. Hall Skelton. Mr. Hubble said that in this case slips had been given out carrying the words: “City council—Alfred Hall Skelton.” It was contended that the slips had been given out to influence voters in voting for Hall Skelton and that, Mr. Hubble submitted, came within Mr. Justice Blair’s judgment. COUNSEL’S OWN TICKET. For the defence, Mr. Hall Skelton said that in the case quoted by Mr. Hubble the printed slip had set out how the voter was to vote and who he was to vote for. That ticket had definitely carried the advice “vote for.” His own ticket had in no way influenced the person how to vote. It merely stated that there was such a person as Hall Skelton’standing for the election. With so many candidates standing the man at the bottom of the list might easily have been missed in 1923. Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., had held that a card headed “Citizens* Ticket” and carrying the names of citizens’ candidates could not influence a person how to vote and had dismissed a prosecution brought at Auckland, continued Mr. Hall Skelton. The case before the court he contended did not go so far and did not come within the section of the Act or Mr. Justice Blair’s judgment. Mr. McKean said he thought Mr. Justice Blair’s judgment made the position 'clear. The wording of the ticket was not of importance. If such a ticket were handed to a person it was perfectly obvious that it was a suggestion that that person should vote for the candidate named. It seemed a clear case and came within the . Act. He would have to hold that an offence had been committed. “This sort of thing has been going on for years at municipal elections at Auckland,” remarked Mr. McKean. “Apparently this is not the first time a case of the kind has been before the court.” On Mr. Hubble saying that the cases were test ones and that he was not pressing for a heavy penalty the magistrate convicted Cross and ordered him to pay court costs and solicitor’s fee. TABLE OUTSIDE BOOTH. In the case in which Robert Purdie (Mr. Terry) was charged with “interfering with electors pn election day,” Detective McLean said Purdle had been seated at a table on the footpath outside the entrance to the Trades Hall polling booth. Purdie had on the table a number of tickets, some showing the names of candidates representing the Citizens’ Party. For Purdie, Mr. Terry said that the case was fundamentally different from the previous one in which tickets had been handed out among voters. Mr. Poynton had expressed the opinion that it was actually an assistance and not a hindrance for a voter to have a card handed to him. The Citizens’ Committee, counsel explained, had set up a tabls J outside the booth. The colours of the party had been openly displayed and no move or signal had been made to get intending voters to come to the table. Men at the tables had electoral roles before them and also bundles of tickets carrying the names of Citizens’ candidates. Intending voters if they so desired could go to the table and inquire as to Citizens’ candidates. He submitted that there had been no interference with voters and that the most Purdie had done was to hand out tickets when they had been wanted. Purdie in evidence said people who Came to the table either asked for tickets or picked one up themselves without asking. He did not hand out any tickets unless they were asked for. Holding that the facts in this case were slightly different from th: previous one and that there was no evidence to contradict the evidence of Purdie, Mr. McKean reserved las decision.