Independent Attitude.

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 4, Issue 141, 13 August 1941, Page 5

Independent Attitude.

In prosecuting Eskil Elias Alexander Gillgren for failure to enrol, Sergeant Farrell stated that when interviewed the man who was 28 years of age had adopted an independent and aggressive attitude and refused an explanation pointing out that he had furnished such to the Director of National Service.

Mr G. Otley for the defendant stated that Gillgren had been under the impression that his Social Security returns had covered requirements. The man was now called ill i ballot.

'•You have only yourself to blame for adopting an independent attitude and I will l-eflect that in the fine," said His Worship naming £15 With costs 12s as the penalty.

Plea of Employers

The employers of the defaulter, the Whakatane Paper Mills Ltd. were represented by their secretary when charged with employing Gillgren for more than seven days after the date he should have enrolled for service. In prosecuting Sergeant Farrell said that the Mills had attempted to ascertain whether or not their employees had enrolled. The officials had gained the impression when enquiries Avere made that Gillgren was a married man. He added that a more rigorous method of enquiry had now been adopted at the Mills.

The defence stated that at present the Mills employed 150 men both European and Maori and ranging in age between 18 and 60. The employers had been under the impression that the man was married and on discovering that he was not had immediately instructed him to do so.

It was submitted that the final clause, of the regulation might btapplied that the employers believed on reasonable grounds that the man was not eligible for enrolment.

Commenting that the employers had not taken the steps they should have His Worship imposed a fine of £5 with costs 16s.

(Continued in next column)

No Wish to Shirk. Archibald Miller, a 31 year old native of Scotland stated that he had had no wish to avoid his obligations but had been under the impression that his Social Security return had met the regulations. Sergeant Farrell stated that past employersi of the man had expressed Uie opinion that he had been genninely under the impression that he had enrolled. Giving him the benefit of the doubt the Magistrate named a fine of £10 with costs £1 2s.