WHOSE MISTAKE?

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 246, 5 July 1918, Page 6

WHOSE MISTAKE?

CASE OF WALTER GORING JOHNSTON The case of Walter Goring Johnston was again mentioned before the Military Service Board yesterday by Mr. C. P Skerrett, K.C. i Mr. Skerrett said that he had asked for a rehearing of the case. "Some observa tions have been made before the board upon the conduct of Walter Goring Johnston, and as these observations were founded upon erroneous information it is only fair that I should be permitted tn state the exact facts," continued Mr. Skerrett. "Upon these statements .the board was invited to make an example of Johnston. On May 9 Johnston. was summoned to present himself for medical examination ori May 18. On that day he duly attended the Medical Board, and was told that because of his age he would bo placed in Class C 2. Tha recruiting authorities were very busy that day, and by inadvertenco the oath was not administered to Johnston, nor was he told that it would be necessary for him to attest. He thought that he had done all that was required of him under the Acts. Some time later he received a notice in a form whicli was a duplicate of what he had previously 'received, requiring him to attend for medical examination; and as he had already complied with the requirement of tile previous notice he thought it was unnecessary tc do anything further. It is true that although the notice was identical in form with the first notice received by Johnston it had- a note "to complete attestation." But these words conveyed nothing to Johnston. Subsequently Majoi Corrigan telephoned his office and leff a message for him, pointing out his obligation to attest; and within an hour ol that telephone message attended and attested. At the first hearing of his appeal by this board he was told that lit would, bccause of his age, be placed in Class C' 2; and he understood that it would be unnecessary foi him to attend the adjourned hearing of his appeal. This was suggested as exhibiting disrespect to the board, but certainly nothing was further from Johnston's mind. It was also said that Johnstoil's conduct had been unsatisfactory, This statement was again made on erroneous information, and there is no single fact by which it can be supported. Tilt appellant has for some days, past, and is now, confined by illness to his house : otherwise he would have attended to-daj personally before the board." Captain Beale, military representative said that when Johnston had been previously before the board his understanding <of the facts was that when Johnston went* to be medically examined he did not wait to be attested. At that previous hearing of the case he asked Johnston why ho had not waited to completo his attestation, and the answer of the reservist was: "I was not going to wail there all day." Now a different statement was made on his behalf. This sec ond statement was that Johnston, was told by the medical officers that he was not further required. But whichever ac count was correct, there was no gettiiif away from the fact that at the time tin board gave its decision Johnston had nol taken the oath, and had failed to attem' to take the oath on the date on whicl lie was ordered to do so. The chairman said that there.had evi dently been a misunderstanding, sine that it was not uecessaij to go furtliei into the matter, Mr. Johnston shoulj have attended and attested. The inci dent had now closed as far as the boan was concerned.