Prosecutions by Electoral Registrar.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7963, 28 October 1905, Page 2

Prosecutions by Electoral Registrar.

A DEFENDANT FINED.

'Mr T. Hutchison, S..\r. delivered Jiis-iv.si-rvt (1 on l-Yklny in eon-n-eetion with Iho proceedings 'brought hy the Klcetoral Registrar of Tara naki (Mr W. A.i D: Hanks) against John William Heady and .Joseph Cody for an alleged breach ol' the Act. Air Quilliam appeared for the defendants.

The Magistrate sard that section « 76 ol' live Electoral Act provided for a lino not exceeding £2O, or impris- j onmen-i 'up 'to a term ut' il'hrec months, against any person Knowing- j iy or wilfully making a false statement in any claim, application, evil i- j fieate or -declaration. Tlve informalion against Ken by alleged that on Oct. <> 'hi-made a false tttaqement, by declaring that, lu: had resided within the said elect-oral district for three months immediately preced ing that date. The matters ol' fad so alleged, said the S.M., were fully proved, but it was urged in defence that the other evidence adduced by tlve defendant shoved that no ofVence had been com-mitted-because the defendant had not made a false claim "knowingly and wilfully.'' The defence .was that -the defendant, in signing' the claim for ennlment, supposed it to be a claim for a transfer of 'his vote from the roll of 'another 'district, and that 'he had or 'believed he 'had the rigid, to bo enrolled as 'a transferred voter. Did the evidence support this view?The claim was signed at the instance of Joseph Cody, in the Commonwealth Hotel. There was obviously nothing in ■defendant's account of what took placo to show that the defendant supposed, or eotil-d reasonably have supposed, that he signed u claim for a transfer. All he could have supposed was that he was signing a claim to vote. It was -true that Cody's -evidence supplemented, the account of the defendant, though how much of this evidence related to matter subsequent, to the signing--he (the S."M.) couVd not say. Dealing \vilit the question whether Tleaby had 'the ri'ght' even to a transfer, the K."M. said 'it was "quite clear that tlve -defendant could not say even now that lie was ■entitled on Oct. 0. by a month's residence, to that right, it appeared to the Magistrate to be quite plain Ihut the element of guilty knowledges prima facie established by the facts proved 'by the pro- j sedition, bad in no wise-Ijieen negatived by the 'defendant. Tf the defendant had no actual knowledge of the contents of the claim ho *igned. Ivo certainly ought to have had. He was not misled/and anyway he showed such an 'amount of reckless-indifference as to what he did sign that his wilful 'ignorance might well be imputed as knowledge. The "Mngnstrnle, in pointing out that the defendant must -be convicted. sai'd 1 he was not sure, that he ought to taku h\to eonsidm'at i'on, tas he purposed doing, that the Rel endant was in a great -hurry at the time (>n signing the form, seeing that -there was no necessity for hurry and the claim might have been made, as well, if not more properly, in the Registrar's otlice, later on. The -defendant was fined 20s with Costs.

SF.COXD IXFO-KMATIOX DISMISS

With regard to tlic clvai's'e against Cody, of wilfully misleading' the Registrar liy lodging the claim on Oct. 1:2, well knowing' il l<> I"' invalid. Ill,' S.M. saiti Ilia claim in question was lone which if was mlmiltcri ought no) to have Ih.vii lodged. Section 77, •wtttyoh nrovi\s:il for a jwivalty of .">() for "misleading the Hegistrar," was somewhat vague. This could scarcely I,l' iulee.ded to cover I lie act. of a person who in good ; f«iili takes another's claim to vote, which may turn out to tie invalid. '['lie Statute gives every elector the riglvt to take a claim. If it he a false one. saiil the S.M., there is provision for punishment of live claimant, anil i! the elector is a parly lo the fraud the appropriate punishment would, he supposed, he that lalling upon an '"aider." Nor can the manual act of handing in a claim which is invalid, continued the Magistrate, ■lie a misleading of the Itegistrnr. lie doubled ir it would he so, even if it I could lie shown that the person lodging live claim knew that -it was in some particular invalid, because, there is niac-lrinery providing lor the winnowing out ot invalid claims. 11 was unnecessary to pursue the subject. I'urtheit because tin; facts here, the S.M. said, fell under one or other of the above categories, not, in his opinion, coming under the penally of the statute. Apart from that, as the lieg'istrar admitted that he was not in°f«ct misled, having by his inquiries detected tile invalidity of tiio claim, it was clear that the information must bp dismissed.