FAILURE TO PARADE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 6, Issue 46, 9 February 1943, Page 5

FAILURE TO PARADE

HOME GUARD CONVICTIONS AGAINST NINE DEFENDANTS Before Mr E. L. Walton, S.M., in the Te Puke Magistrate's Court last week, the adjourned case involving nine men charged with failing to attend; Home Guard, parades was concluded. Sergeant G. S. Saunders, of Tau-. ranga, conducted the case for tlx© police on behalf of the Home Guard authorities and made the following statement: "I have 1 been instructed to represent the Army Departments Captain Gordon and Captain Cuff arc present in Court to place before the Court the .Department's side of the question regarding the alleged dispute between some of the Home Guardsmen and their Commanding Officer,■ Major Cook. According to newspaper reports of theiiearing it was made to appear that there was; a lot of dissension in the Home Guard at Te. Puke, whereases a matter of fact the only trouble is that the defendants are not aii> tending parades and tine others are,. ■ and are dissatisfied on account of them not so attending., It is submitted that the Home Guardsmen are under military discipline and must obey orders unless they have a reasonable excuse. If dissatisfied at the order they can report accordingly, but must obey the order. What would be the position if the men in Libya took a similar attitude? These cases were *■ adjourned to enable the parties to compose their differences and Captains Cuff and Gordon will say that no steps have been taken by defendants as instructed by this Court. Their failure to parade since lasit before the Count, in- November hzfs .given the officers no opportunity of conciliatory action. The strength of ,tlie Home Guard in the district is 587 and the defendants are. the ones with an alleged, grievance. The Magistrate said that evidence j had .been taken but he was pre— pared to hear statements from both sides. ■ On behalf of J. M. Hodges, W. j S. Russell and C. H. Montgomery * Mr W. E. Hookey asked for an adf- , journment for one month. He said ' those men were not defaulters m the ordinary sense but they had a grievance. They we're desirous of • joining a mounted unit which he*, understood was to be formed. la the case of M. A. Wilkins, this tleifendant had applied for a medical examination. W. L. Barker was » now serving his country in an Air Force camp. Sergeant Saunders said he had instructions to oppose an adjournment. Three months had gone by and these men had not sought any conciliation with the local Home Guard but had gone over heads. He had information .that Wilkins had been passed fit for Home Guard service. B. L. Rice stated that he had considered the, position and- was . now attending Home Guard, parades.. ' In the case of Hoko Home, the Magistrate said it had been shown that this man had attested as he thought to a Maori unit/The breach, was; a technical one and he was convicted, and dischal-ged. W. L. Barker was convictcd and> discharged. B. E. Baker and E., O'. Webbersmade no appearance . ' They convicted and fined ■£2 each ans costs 10is each. B. L. Rice, whom the Magistrate said was apparently now performing his service, was convicted and; discharged. J. M. Hodges, C., H. Montgom-!-cry and W. S. Russell were each convicted and fined £1 and costs IQs. M. A. Wilkins was also convictedand fined £1 and 10s costs. Charged with failing to attend Home Guard parades in September* 1942, Albert Edward Kelly, cf Pon— . gakawa, Ayho made no appearance 1 , • was convicted and fined 10s and 12s costs.—Te Puke Times.