CASE DISMISSED.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 52, 1 February 1932, Page 2

CASE DISMISSED.

Charged with the offence that during the taxing of the poll at the general election he did _ interfere with an elector on his way to the polling booth with the intention of 'influencing him as to how to vote, Victor Christensen, appeared before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court to-day. The information was brought under -.he Electoral Act of 1927. Defendant, oh whose behalf Mr Ongley appeared, pleaded' not guilty. Senior-Sergeant Whiteliouse said defendant was one of a number, and the proceedings were in the nature of a test case.

Constable Grant said defendant was at the booth asking peoplo if they, wanted a roll number, and he issued to them tickets with the name of “Hodgens” printed bn the top. Defendant and others were there all day. Witness knew personally the names of. voters to whom the tickets were handed.

Cross-examined by counsel, witness stated that both candidates had their supporters present at the booth. They supplied the voters’ numbers. People walked up to defendant to ask their number and he supplied it without comment. Defendant himself did not approach anybody. Sergeant Hill stated that defendant had informed him that the tickets had been issued by the authority of the party. • ■ ,<: lo counsel, witness said that the complaint was that the tickets had the names thereon. The other candidate’s supporters had issued tickets also, out there were no complaints concerning them. He did not know how far the public was conversant with the parties’ colours, but he had known the distinguishing colours worn. Counsel maintained that the case must fail as there was no evidence of interference for defendant lmd not taken any steps to influence the voter by word or act. The handing of the ticket could not have influenced the voter, although it may have been in the minds of the committee that it would attract the voter. Defendant had only 'arrived back in Palmerston •North on the day of the election and he had merely served as a poll clerk. The Magistrate, in dismissing the charge, stated that he considered that the present case fell short of the definition contained in the Act for although the tickets issued to expedite the voting at the poll did have, one k of the candidate’s name thereon there had to be actual interference on the part of the committeeman acting for a candidate.