LAW CLEAR

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 945, 15 December 1933, Page 7

LAW CLEAR

SEQUEL TO TRAM BOARD ELECTION. Party Tickets at Booths. MAGISTRATE DECLARES PRACTICE ILLEGAL. The practice of distributing party tickets at election booths was declared illegal by Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., this morning in what was treated as a test case. Albert Edward Forsev, of Thackeray Street, was charged that on November 30. while a poll was being taken for the Tramway Board, he interfered with electors while on their way to the polling booth in Snakespeare Road with the intention of influencing them as to their vote. The judgment of his Honor Mr Justice Blair in the case of Cogswell v. Morgan was freely quoted during the hearing The Magistrate said the law was quite clear on the point. Defendant was represented by Archer. Sub-Inspector G. B. Edwards appeared for the police. The sub-inspector said that the information was laid under the Local Elections and Polls Act. At the last Tramway election cards had been handed to electors on their way to the booths; in the case before the Court the card contained the names of the five Labour candidates out of the seventeen candidates for the central sub-district. One card was handed to Mrs Myrtle Sheehan on her way to the booth in Shakespeare Road. There were three other cases of a similar nature and the police rested them all cn the decision in the first case. “ Not Influenced.” Mrs Sheehan, in evidence, said that defendant was sitting near the entrance to the booth and handed her a card. He did not pass any remarks, but simply held out the card. Constable M’Kay took her name and address to call her as a witness, and she handed over the card to him. The card did not influence her. She did not look at it artd could have walked into the booth without taking it. Mr Archer said the case was a most important one and one of national interest. He quoted from the card, which bore, in addition to the names of the candidates, the words: “ Remember! All over the age of 21 years are entitled to vote. Keep this card. Take it into the polling booth with you. Note: You can vote for 5 candidates at any booth.” Mr Archer added that the object of the card was that the voter could take it to the booth for the purpose of identifying the candidates standing in the interests of the ticket for which the card was given out. It was left to the voter whether or not he voted for the people whose names were on the card. The card operated just as much in the opposite direction. It assisted those, who were not of the partv to cross off the names that appeared on the card. It had been a recognised practice to distribute the cards, so much so that one expected a card from each partv to assist in voting if one wished to vote on party lines. Had Legal Advice. Opponents of either party in Christchurch were just as keen to get the cards as the supporters. Defendant had acted under instructions from a committee which had had legal advice on the matter. The Magistrate: Legal advice? Counsel: Not the legal advice of anyone in Christchurch, but from Wellington. . , The Magistrate: I’m pleased to hear that. Mr Archer said that the police had advised both the party organisations in Christchurch on the morning of the election that prosecutions would follow if the cards were distributed at the booths. The other organisation had not gone on with the distribution, apart from a few that were distributed early in the morning. The Labour Party said that it would continue, acting on legal advice. Mr Archer said he would put in samples of the cards issued by the Citizens’ Association, but the Magistrate held that they were not relevant. The sub-inspector: Two wrongs do not make a right. The Magistrate: It would not matter if there were fifty parties. They would all get the same treatment. A Previous Case. Mr Archer contended that in his judgment in the case of Cogswell v. Morgan Mr Justice Blair had gone to the extreme limit in his interpretation. In the case before the Court, Mrs Sheehan had not been pressed to take the card, and had said that she need not have taken it had she not wished to. It had not, as in the Morgan case, been pressed on the elector. “ Neither,” said counsel, “ was there any importuning or soliciting of votes in any way whatever.” Those elements were present in the other case. He submitted that it was inconceivable that the practice could be importuning or soliciting votes. The cards were giver out to inform the electors that certain candidates were, in fact, standing for a certain party. It was an offer of information and open only to those willing to take it. The information contained was helpful to the electors. It was an accepted method of electioneering. The Magistrate: The point is that it is against the law. I am here only to administer the law. The Court is not concerned with parties or electioneering. They are quite irrelevant matters.

The Magistrate added that the matter seemed perfectly simple to him. Mr Justice Blair, when he gave his decision, obviously did not consider it a difficult matter. “ I think I see some members of the Labour Partv in Court who could give just as good an interpretation of the law on it if thev sat down and considered it.” he added It did not require long legal training or education to construe the words of the statute. A Clear Invitation.

The wording was plain and intelligible to the most unlettered voter. That was the way the learned judge had interpreted it. “ The card is a clear invitation to vote for the five candidates named on the card.” he said. Otherwise the names would not have been put on. It could not have been issued with any purpose other than to influence voters. There had also in this case been the element of

interference, although perhaps tech nical.

The Magistrate was at first disinclined to treat the case as a test case, stating that the law had been established clearly in the case of Cogswfell v. Morgan, but later agreed to do so. Defendant was fined £2 and costs.

Three other cases on similar lines were set down for hearing in the after-