THE ANOMALY OP A DEFENCE PROSECUTION.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1759, 26 May 1913, Page 5

THE ANOMALY OP A DEFENCE PROSECUTION.

JUDGE WILLIAMS'S REMARKS. . (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) Dunedin, May 23. In the Supreme Court to-day Reuben Walter' Coulson and John Charles Sanders appealed against, the decision of tho Magistrate (Mr. Haselden) in convicting and fining thorn £5 reach for failing to attend Territorial parades without lawful exeuse. Mr. A. S. Adams, who appeared for appellants, said that, in relation to the general training section, the provisions of tho Dofcnce Act had been completely ignored by tho Department, which had acted in- defiance of the Act, and had apparently placed the whole of tho men out of tho training section of the Territorial forces without any legislative authority." It was admitted that, at the time that appellants failed to attend parthev were not members of the Territorial force, and were; therefore, not Tinder any obligation to attend, but the Magistrate held that, nnder the Amending Act of 1912, they were guilty of an offence, and ho imposed the maximum fine. The Act of 1912 came in force on November 7, while the parades were held in August. September, and Octolxir, 'and the information on which the fines were inflicted was sworn on November I—six days before tho Act came into force. Tliis class of legislation had been declared unconstitutional in America, and had been referred to by English Judges as "bar•barous; cruel, and unjust." Mr. J. F. M. Eraser, for the Crown, contended that the Magistrate was justified in taking into consideration the state of the law at the time at which he was writing his judgment. Mr. Justice Williams said that it came as a shock to him to think that, for an act which was innocent to-dav one might bo punished criminally under an Act passed, three months hence. He would take time to consider his decision. He had not the slightest sympathy with persons who tried to shirk their military obligations, but lie. had still less sympathy with tho kind of interpretation that th© Crown wished the Court to put upon this Statute.