CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2491, 31 March 1882, Page 3

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT.

MR IVESS CHARGED WITH PERSONATION. In the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Ashburton, yesterday, before Mr Donald Williamson (the Mayor) and Mr R. Alcorn, J.P., Joseph Iveis, one of the three candidates at the Wakanui election, was charged with personation. The Court was fairly filled. The information vrss laid by 0. P. Cox, Registrar of Electors for the electoral district of Wakanui, alleging that Joseph Ivess did, on the Bth of November, without a written authority to do so, write the name of George James on a claim to have James’ name inserted on the roll, in order to make the claim appear as that of James, contrary to the 28th section, 2nd clause, of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1881. Mr 0. W. Purnell appeared for the Registrar ; Mr Ivess conducted bis own esse, Mr Purnell Stated that the Registrar was bound by the Act to prosecute, if it appeared that the offence of personation had been committed. This Mr Purnell mentioned, as he alleged, because defendant in his paper that morning had sought to insinuate that the Registrar had been actuated by other motives. The offence was committed last November, when a general election was about to take place. A large number of claims had been sent in by the defendant and others, and the circumstances attaching to the claim in question bad escaped attention at the time. As to the name on the claim, there was nothing exceptional, as the Registrar had been aware that a man named George James was entitled to have his name placed on tbs roll, and lived near Tinwald. Subsequently, it was manifest that several irregular claims were being sent in, and various irregularities indulged in by certain persons for the purpose of what was commonly termed “ stuffing ” the roll. Ihe offence was a difficult one to prove, being in its nature a secret one. Only within the last few days had sufficient evidence been obtained upon which to ground the information. Mr Purnell said that he had thought it advisable to explain the reason for delay, which, however, was really immaterial, provided the delay did not exceed six months. Under the 28th clause of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, section j2, it was stated that personation was committed if defendant had attached James’ name without written authority. The Act was stringent. In Mr Pharazyn’s case the jury expressly recorded that defesdant had voted twice inadvertently, and yet, in the face of that verdict, the conviction was upheld on appeal. Mr Purnell concluded by remarking that, had not the Act expressly constituted the offence in question a misdemeanor, it would really have been forgery. 0. P. Cox, Registrar, deposed that Joseph Ivess’ name was on the roll, also the name of George James, described as “ residential, Tinwald, drover.” James’ name was inserted on the roll through the claim [produced] having been sent in. The claim was made under the Registration of Electors Act, 1879, and was received in the ordinary course with a number of other claims. Witness could not say by whom the claim was sent in. About the time of its being sent in Mr Ivess was sending in a number of claims, and used to enter witness’ office frequently on registration business. The handwriting on the claim in question appeared to bo all in one hand, but this peculiarity did not attract witness’s attention before James’ name was put on the roll. At the time of the petition agai- et Hr J. O, Wason’s return witness was cubpcored by both sides to produce claims. In taking out these his attention was attracted to the claim in question. He then instituted inquiries, which resulted in this prosecution. The informa tion was laid as soon os possible after witness was satisfied that defendant hod committed tho offence.

In cross-examination, Mr Ivess put the question whether or not it was the duty of the witness to minutely examine every claim that was sent in ?

Mr Purnell objected on the ground that this was a question of law. Mr Ivess cited thst considerable latitude was allowed to crossexamining counsel, and that he (Mr Ivess) should be allowed as much latitude as if he had sent to Christchurch to procure legal assistance.

The Bench ruled that the question was one of fact, but that Mr Ivess might ask if he had examined the claim in question. By Mr Ivess—The Registrar said he had examined all the claims to the best of hit ability. Witness had received a summons to produce claims, but had declined to produce them, believing they were altogether irrelevant. (Mr Ivess characterised this conduct on witness’s part as a contempt of Court.] James had informed him (witness) that ho (James) had.neither by written authority nor verbally authorised witness to put James's name on the roll. The claim was made to appear as that of George James he

signature witness had taken to be James’s, Witness knew of no other claim purporting to have been sent in by James. Witness had rot known claims go astray in his office, and had searched carefully and personally to sea if any other claim purporting to be James’s had gone astray in the office. Witness personally knew James, and had now no doubt that hie name was entitled to be placed on the roll. At the time his name was placed on simply owing to the claim hating been sent in, and not because witness knew from his personal knowledge of James that he was entitled to hate his name on.

By Mr Purnell—The rolls were about to b« closed, when the claim in question came in. It was not physically possible for witness to minutely examine every claim during the time at his disposal, George James, drover of Tinwald, deposed that he voted at the last election for Wakanui. The signature to the claim [produced] wa* not in witness’ handwriting. Witness knew the defendant, Mr Ivess, and did not reo lleet having given him written authority to sign the claim. Witness had told Ivess to put hi* (witness’) name on the roll about election time. Witness had told Ivess this at the Tinwald Hotel.

By Mr Ivess—Witness told the Begistrar last Wednesday that he had told somebody to put his (witness’) name on the roll, but ho did not remember whom he told. So far as witness was aware, Mr Oox had not asked him if defendant had been authorised to place witness’ name on the roll. So far as witness was aware, he had not told Mr Oox that defendant was never so authorised. At the time of the hearing of the election petition at Bakaia, witness’ attention was called to thw matter of the claim. Witness had no recollection of supplying the particulars of the claim. He remembered meeting defendant at the Tinwald Hotel. Witness was not prepared to swear that he had supplied defendant with the information contained in the claim. Witness might have supplied the information, but had no recollection. Witness was not prepared to swear whether he signed a form or not. Witness had not, so far he was aware, given any written authorisation for his name to bo placed on the roll. Witness could not say whether it was possible that he could sign a paper without knowing it. Witness had no recollection of signing any paper at all. There were lots of papers flying about the country which witness might have signed. I Laughter ] The subject of registration was dealt with in the presence of Mr Chichester, and very possibly of Mr Soott, landlord of the Tinwald Hotel. Witness might have gives written authority, but had no recollection. Witness was not aware that he was “ tight” on the night in question at Tinwald, By Mr Purnell—On Thursday or Friday witness had a conversation about the matter with constable Neill. Witness then told Mr Neill that he had no recollection of having told Mr Ivess anything about putting witness’* name on the roll. Mr Chichester was living in the hotel at the time, but witness was not sure whether Chichester was working up votes for Ivess or for Wason. It might have been for Mr Purnell.

Constable Neill, stationed at Ashburton, deposed that be knew George James, and had a conversation with him at Tinwald on 25th March at Scott’s Hotel. Witness had in his pocket a number of notices received from Mr Cox of persons who had applied to have their names placed on the roll, but who had been objected to. Witness said to James, “ James, I think I have one for you.” Witness looked over the list and said there was one for Charles James. Witness asked George James if he knew anyone of the name of Charles James, and George James said No. Witness asked George James if he bad applied to have his name placed on the electoral roll. He replied that he had some time ago, before the last election. Witness asked him how he had applied. James said he was in Scott’s Hotel and a man named Chichester came into the room and said, “ I see, James, you haven’t got your name on the roll.” James replied, “ All right, put my name on the roll.” Witness thereupon asked James if he bad given a written authority for his name to be placed on the roll, and James said he did not.

By Mr Ivess—l asked James if he had given written authority, and he said positively he had not.

S. E Foyntz, commission-agent, of Ashburton, deposed that he knew defendant’s handwriting. The signature to the claim [produced] is in the handwriting of the defendant. The name George James on the claim, in witness’s opinion, and to the best of his belief was also in defendant’s handwriting. Witness had had a few transactions with defendant, from whom the four letters [produced] had been received. J. Maclean Dunn, journalist, deposed that he knew defendant’s handwriting, and had several times seen him write. The signature to the claim [produced] was, witness should say, in Mr Press's handwriting, In witness’s opinion the »ords “ George James ” were also in Mr Ivess’s handwriting, and also the remainder of the manuscript on the claim in question. F. W. Marlin, recently ledger-keeper in the Union Bank of Australia (Limited), deposed that fendant used to keep an account there. To the best of witness’s belief, the names on the claim were in Mr Ivess’s handwriting.

W. H. Zoueh, newspaper proprietor, also deposed to the handwriting being defendant's.

The defendant reviewed the evidence at considerable length, saying, inter alia, that he was certain he had received a written authority. He had, however, searched for it in vain, but was confident be should yet find it. He considered there had been no direct evidence adduced to show that no written authorisation had been given. Defendant oaurged the Registration Officer with doing his duties in a most slovenly and disgraceful manner.

The Bench decided that a prima facie case had not been made out. The case hinged on the evidence of James, which was very unsatisfactory. James had sworn that there might or might not have been a written authority, and Mr Iveis was entitled to the doubt. Defendant would therefore be discharged.

The announcement of the Bench’s decision was received with some applause, which was at once suppressed.