CHARGE OF STUFFING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7543, 28 October 1902, Page 3

CHARGE OF STUFFING.

A CASE DISMISSED

AN UNEXPECTED DEVELOPMENT. George Dimond was charged, on the information of the Registrar of Electors, before Captain Whitby, J.P., and Captain Marciel, J.P., at the Lyttelton Police Court this morning with having signed his name ns a witness to the signature of John M'Pherson to a claim for enrolment on the Lyttelton electoral roll without having seen the signature written. He pleaded not guilty. The Registrar of Electors, Mr W. Shanagan, called John M'Pherson, who deposed. that he had been five days in Lyttelton, having come from Bruce County. He had not signed the claim, for enrolment produced. William Shanagan 'produced a claim for enrolment on the Lyttelton electoral roll, bearing the signature of John M'Pherson, witnessed by George Dimond i from whom he had received the claim. He deposed that on inquiry he had found that M'Pherson was not entitled to be on the Lyttelton roll and had repudiated the signature to the claim. *»

The defendant called! Albert Edefin, barman at the Mitre Hotel, Lyttelton, who deposed that on the niglifc of Oct. 22 three men came into the bar, and, seeing a notice about enrolment there, asked if their names could be put on the roll. Witness called Dimond, who was in another room, and two of them, of whom M'Pherson was one, signed claims to vote. They were not drunk at the time. Defendant gave similar evidence, and added that he had asked M'Pherson the usual questions, whether he had been twelve months in the colony and three months in the district. M'Pherson said he had.

A similar charge against Dimond, in respect of a man named Matthew Rennie, was then heard.

Matthew Rennie deposed that he had been a week in Lyttelton, and had coma ivqm China in the s.s. Mercedes. The signature to the claim to vote produced was not liis. Dimondi had come to him on the wharf at. twelve o'clook in the day, and had asked him to sign " this bill." He had replied, "No." Dimond had seem his discharge, and any educated man could have told from it that he was not 'entitled to vote, as he had only come to the colony in the Mercedes.

ALbert Edefin gave evidence similar to that he had given in the former case, identifying Rennie as a man who had signed a claim in his and Dimond's presence on Oct. 22.

Defendant asked that M'Pherson and Rennie might be made to sign their names in Court and submit- the signatures to the Bfneh.

Thia was done, and after comparing the signatures, Captain Whitby eaid that the Court was satisfied that these two men had signed their names to the claims, and that there was no caiso against Dimond. Mr Shanaghan. then charged Bennie and M'Pherson with having wilfully made a false declaration to the effect that they had been in tho Lyttelton electoral district for three months. William Shanaghan, George Dimond and Constable Ivsson 'gave evidence. The lastnamed stated that he interviewed the two men ns to their qualifications to vote, and thev had said they had not been in the district for three months. They were sober when ho .saw them, and he took their signatures in his pocket-book. These signatures were found to exactly resemble those on the claims.

Rennie and M'PherTon- gave evidence on cheir own behalf, in somewhat confused and .•xcited style. Both swore that they had not signed the claims, and that they did not ■vniember seeing Dimond in the Mitre Hotel on Oct. 22. Mr Shanaghan said that he did not wish to press for a heavy penalty against tnv iccused. It was quite evident that tney ad done this in a public-house, and mignt Aave been under the influence of liquor at 'no time, but he had to bring the matter >fore the Court in order to have it cleared

Captain Whitbv said that, having com•arcd the .signatures, the Bench had not •':i.> slightest doubt that, Ihe two accused ■-.yd sisned the papers, perhaps not known:r what thev wero doing, but tins kind of ''.ing must be put- a. stop to. The Ben eh v.ould. however, deal leniently with them. :i;i-l inflict only a nominal fine. Each would ■>q fined ss, with twenty-four hours' imprisonment in default.

London postmen cover bctwe-y them about' 55,000 miles daily.