FINING VOLUNTEERS.— IMPORTANT DECISION.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3830, 25 October 1883, Page 3

FINING VOLUNTEERS.— IMPORTANT DECISION.

Wellington, This day,

In the Supreme Court in Banco to-day, before Mr Justice Richmond, judgment was given in tho case of AVinter v. Parncll. The plaintiff who is captain of the J. Battery (Gisborne) of the New Zealand Artillery A r olunteers, fined the defendant for non-appearance at parade. The defendant did not pay tho fine, and a complaint was laid before a magistrate, who dismissed the complaint. The complainant thereupon appealed. Mr Justice Richmond in giving judgment, said, "If I thought any further light would be thrown on the matter by a perusal of the A r oluntccr Act and the regulations, or of the case cited by counsel for the appellant, I should have to consider my judgment, but I think the whole matter is before me, and it is not likely that reflection would cause my judgment to be different from what I now think it should be. On the construction of the Act I think tho only jurisdiction to impose these penalties is given to Justices of the Peace. It is given in tho usual terms. I think it would be impossible to contend that the commanding officer could impose penalties. Sections -10 and 17 appear to bo satisfactory, in that under the IGth section tho commanding officer is the prosecutor, not the judge, and under section 17 the commanding officer may be the offender, and the duty of prosecuting would devolve on some ono else. The jurisdiction to adjudicate is given to Justices alone. The matter is somewhat differently treated by the regulations, but they must bo considered subordinate to the Act. Under rule No. 208 tho commanding officer can fine a A r olutiteer Is for talking in the ranks. I am not prepared by any means to say that such a regulation is ultra vires. It is clearly desirable that for the sake of discipline such a power should exist, but where there is no express power given to the officer to impose a penalty the power must bo only to tho Justices. In rule 268 it is not stated by whom the penalty is to be iuqiosed, therefore in that case the officer is the prosecutor and not the judge. Iv the present oaso tho defendant was not charged with any offence. He should have been charged with the offence of not appearing on the Government parade. On the face of the case it is stated that the fine was lawfully imposed, but that is begging the question. That statement is repugnant to tho rest of the case, and cannot bo taken as a confemtio jurist. I give costs with great reluctance, but I think I must. Appeal dismissed Avith costs."