MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2664, 8 January 1916, Page 14

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

AGAINST RECRUITING A PAMPHLET PROHIBITED A Breach of the Dominion's War Regulations was investigated ill tlie Magistrate's Court before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., yesterday morning, when John M. Murrell was charged with publishing matter likely to interfere with the recruiting of Ilis Majesty's l'orces The charge related to a pamphlet or tract delivered to a resident- of 1) ordell, near Wanganui, on or about October 23 last. Mr. V. R. Meredith, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for ■ the Crown, while Mr. F. E. I'etherick appeared for tlie defendant, and tendered a plea of not guilty. At tho outset Mr. Petherick stated that he would admit facts, and leave it to His Worship to say whether or not. ail offence was disclosed. Mr.' Meredith said that the charge involved a breach of Regulation 4 of tho War Regulations made in July, 1915, which prohibited tho publication of matter likely to interfere with recruiting. The particular offence was tho circulation of a pamphlet containing an ;tft-iclo entitled "Christianity and War," by Dr. Alfred Salter, and another article entitled "Churches and tho War," by Loyton Richards. Tho document had been printed at tho ollice of • 'Tho Worker," m Wellington, and was ill circulation throughout New Zealand by tho Pcace Society and other organisations, its circulation being probably systematic. Counsel quoted paragraphs from the pamphlet, which not only laid it down that war was antiChristian, but went further, and niado 'objectionable comments about our Allies and tho general conduct of tho war. The matter had been brought under the notice of tho Defence authorities by a letter in a Wanganui newspaper. It was submitted that tho publication of tho pamphlet was clearly a breach of the War Regulations, and a serious one. Mr. Petherick stated that Mr. Murrell came here some years ago, professing to bo a- Christian man, but found that he could not square his religious principles with his business position, and so from being a man of standing in the commercial world he had now- of necessity to hawk'books through the country to maKe a living. ,It was submitted that -there ,was nothing in the pamphlet to influence anyone against recruiting, except such persons as had already conscientious objections. The document itself had been printed before tho War Regulations were made in July, and had merely been circulated in small quantity by the defendant, who ceased distributing them as soon as it was suggested that there might be any . breach of tlio War Regulations. If , any offcnce had been committed, it was contended that the publishers should be punished, and- not the defendant,- . who acted in good faitli. It was submitted, however, that there was • nothing in the pamphlet to influence men of military age, the majority of whom, counsel urged, enlisted from a spirit of adventure rather than from any higher notions of country or. Empire. John -Murrell Murrell, Bible agent, in giving evidence, said he was formerly manager of the Huddart Parker .Company in New Zealand, but found that, on_ account of the religious principles which he held, he could not succeed in business. He disclaimed any intention of influencing any man against recruiting. ' The documents had mostly been handed to p old. men, professing Christian principles, and defendant could not remember ever handing the document to any young man other than his own son, who was now in camp with the Reinforcements. \Defendant claimed to bo law abiding, and had no desire to break any of tho War Regulations. • To Mr. Meredith: He was not an agent for the Peace Society in Wellington.

The Magistrate did not consider itnecessary to reserve decision. To any person of common-sense it was apparent that tho pamphlet contained paragraphs bringing it within the scope of Regulation 4. That regulation was mandatory, and tho question of mens rea was not to be considered. The only question, then, was in respect of the penalty. Sir. Petherick suggested that the. case was one for a nominal penalty only. Tho defendant was a poor man with a wife and five children to maintain. Mr. Meredith did not ask for a vindictive penalty, but submitted that tho offence was too serious to be passed over lightly. The Magistrate agreed with this view. The paximum penalty he said, was £100, but in view of defendant's position a fine of £5, with costs 75., would meet tho case, three weeks' being allowed in which to find the money. Mr. Petherick asked, if His Worship would express some opinion as to the course' which ought .to be followed by societies distributing these pamphlets. The Magistrate said ,ho was certainly of opinion that the publications should be withdrawn from circulation. The people who had placed them in circulation did not appear to have acted with a sufficient sense of responsibility. OTHER CASES. Thomas Turner v and Alfred John Finch were fined 10s. each for using threatening behaviour in Cuba Street. Default was fixed at 48 hours' imprisonment. _ James Cook, Denis Gerondia, and Norman Copeland M'Pheo appeared on remand on separate assault charges. All three were further remanded until Wednesday next. A soldier, named Albert Edgar Adamson, who had been found helplessly drunk some days ago,' was connoted . and ordered to be handed over to the military authorities. Gordon Lennox, Frederick Chilcott, and Alexander Petrie were convicted on charges of insobriety, and .ordered to-pay the cost of curativo treatment in gaol. In addition, Petrie was fined 10s. and jjrohibited. John Shcppard and William Ross wore each fined 10s. for insobriety. Light alternatives were fixed in all the above-mentioned cases.