THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1881. ALLEGED PERSONATION.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2413, 29 December 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1881. ALLEGED PERSONATION.

The elections ic Wellington were apparently carried cut with much greater freedom than, they were in Christchurch. As many hills were stuck all over the town as the candidates chose, while numerous cabs, and other vehicles bearing the names of the candidates were to be seen conveying the voters to the polling booths. The Act evidently did not contemplate that cabs could ba purchased weeks beforehand, that the owners of other vehicles would run them ad libitum, and that large crowds of candidates" friends would act as bill-stickers. And now that the elections are a thing of thepast the excitement is by no means over. On Friday and Saturday last no less than three cases of personation in connection with the recent elections came before the Bench in "Wellington. Two of them are very singular ones, and are fully worth a passing notice. In the first the Hon. O. J. Pharszyn, M.L.C., was charged with having voted at one of the polling booths for the Thorndon electoral district, and of having, on the same day and at the same election, asked for a voting paper in his own name at a second booth. There was no doubt whatsoever that Mr. Pharazyn had voted twice over, for the two voting papers were produced in Court. The case for the prosecution was simple enough. There were the two voting papers—what had Mr. Pharazyn to say in the matter ? As is well known, the city of Wellington is divided into three electoral districts—namely, Thorndon, To Aro, and Wellington South. Mr. Pharazyn's explanation then was as follows. Having a vote in each district, on the morning of the 9 th ho first went and recorded his vote for the South Wellington district. He next went to one of the Thornden booths and voted for Mr. Levin. He then asked a policeman where the booth was for the Te Aro district, and, either because the policeman misdirected him, or because he misunderstood what the policoman said, he went to the second Thorndon booth, instead o£

going to the Te Aro booth. Arrived at the booth, he was furnished with a paper iD due course. The candidates for Te Aro were Messrs. Johnston, Shaw and Stafford. Those for Thorndon wore Messrs. Levin and Dwan. Mr. Pharazyn'a story is that, bein" under the impression that he was in a Te Aro booth, and wishing to vote for Johnston, he must have struck his pen through the name of Dwan under the impression that he was striking it through the names of Shaw and Stafford,, and that he folded the paper under the impression that the name left undisturbed was Johnston, whereas of course it was Levin. So strongly were he and his family under the impression that he had voted for Johnston, that, when that,

gentleman sent up a cab in the afternoon ' for the purpose of getting him. to vote for him, Mrs. Pharazyn sent back word that her husband had already voted for John-

ston. The Bench accepted Mr. Pharazyn's version of the story, but thought nevertheless that the ultimate decision should be left to a higher Court, and the defendant was committed for trial, his own bail in £5 being [taken. As the case is sub judice it is not desirable to say much on the subject, but, taking Mr. Pharazyn'a explanation a 3 true, which there seems no valid reason for doubting, the extraordinary and almost incredible carelessness displayed by the voter cannot help striking one, more particularly as that voter happens to have been a member of the Upper House. Here we find a gentleman taking up a voting paper, and not only not noticing that the name of the candidate he intends to vote for is not on it, but striking his pen through the name of Dwan, when he is thinking he is scratching out Shaw and Stafford. Mr. Pharzyn is, we believe, a very old man, or otherwise it would be difficult to believe that he could have made such an egregious mistake. The second case of personation to which we have alluded is of altogether a different nature, and to ns it seems the fault is divided pretty equally between the voter and the registration officer. A man named Joseph Henry Higginbotham was charged with having applied at one of the booths in the Soutb Wellington District for a voting paper in the name of Joseph Alfred Higginbotham. Now Joseph Henry Higginbotham is the father of Joseph Alfred Higginbotham. The former is a cooper, the lattor a draper's salesman. On the roll the entry stands as "Joseph Alfred Higginbotham, cooper," thus confusing the father and son. It appears further that the father had not intended to vote, not believing his name to be on the roll, but that at the booth he was persuaded he was on the roll, and he voted accordingly. The Deputy Returning Officer declared that the father gave the name of Joseph Alfred, but admitted that the defendant appeared to be at the time in rather a confused state. Indeed it would seem as if Joseph Henry attached more importance to the fact of his trade being correctly named than to the minor detail of his second name not being Alfred. Joseph among his friends was always Joseph, and he possibly had begun altogether to forget that he was a Henry as well as a Joseph. However, he too was committed, bail being taken in defendant's own recognizance of £SO. Political excitement evidently ran high in Wellington, and a good many electors no doubt lost their heads. Mr. Pharazyn was extremely careless, while Joseph Henry was terribly confused. AN APOLOGY. Wb greatly regret that in our report of the proceedings at the B.M. Court, yesterday, an error of importance occurred. The woman Jane Paule, alias Jaok, who was convicted of using obscene language and destroying pro. perty, was stated in our report to have gone to " another brothel kept by Bennings in Barbadoes street." Here the error occurs. The woman had been to two brothels, breaking windows and doing other damage before going to the house of Mr Bennings, whom we believe to be a highly respectable man. We can only repeat our regret that Mr Bennings' name should have been made use of in such an annoying manner. At the tame time we must claim consideration for our reporter's error, owing to the abominable aoouatio properties of the E.M. Conrt. At present it ia a matter of impossibility to hear clearly what magistrate, counsel, or witness may say, and the wonder is that the reports are generally so accurate.