"Law's A Hass"

NZ Truth, Issue 1205, 3 January 1929, Page 4

"Law's A Hass"

THE law compels aii. eligible elector to place his or her name on the electoral roll, but voting is not compulsory, whereas,' it' an elector becomes overzealous or corrupt enough, to vote twice,. he or she is liable to a term of imprisonment. This offence is regarded by the legislature as a serious one, therefore any such charge laid against a person is an indictable one and the punishment can only be meted out by a judge of the Supreme Court. ■ Bearing these facts m mind, and following closely upon the final official scrutiny of votes m the last general election, come the reports of two separate cases of double-voting. In connection with the Wellington case, the magistrate who heard the charge said that the legislature, apparently looked upon double-voting as a serious, matter and, although he considered it a somewhat cumbersome way of dealing with the offence, he was obliged to send the accused, who pleaded guilty, to the ' Supreme Court for sentence. - .y ■ . - In Auckland, however, the presiding magistrate, when a double-voter came before him and pleaded guilty to the offence, did not think the matter sufficiently serious to warrant the carrying out of the letter of the law. He treated the offence summarily, as one which came 7 Within , his jurisdiction. The offender was fined £1 and costs. If the magistrate was not cognisant of the fact that a charge of double-, voting was an indictable one, the case indicates the rarity of the offence. In Wellington, the man concerned — • a comparative newcomer to the country—removed from one district to another and voted as an absentee. Later, on the advice of his friends',, he again registered a vote m liis, old district of residence. 7 Ih the Supreme Court the judge remarked that it was clear the prisoner, did not know he was doing wrong. ;No penalty was imposed and the young man was discharged; but as he had' put: the country to some expense, he had to pay costs of the prosecution. :In Auckland a drunken man committed the J same V offence, (The magis T trate fined him £1. : Both offences were trivial and if the Auckland magistrate ,was Wrong m relegating to himself the ta.sk of meting out punishment, he at least followed out a common - sense;, course of action and saved the country from wasting a lot of valuable time and money. That.the offence is a trivial one there can be no doubt. Double-voting is usually caused through some act;,- of foolishness oiV as; the dh-iect result of - a misapprehension. do peppie deliberately transgress m this direction, y 7 .':'J j ■■.•.•■■:"'■, •. .■'■'yyyy, -'j The new Parliafrierit should lose no time i,n deleting the, clause from the Statutes 'which makes such an offence an indictable one, and place it as a matter within the jurisdiction of magistrates to deal with.