MORE WONDERFUL STILL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1593, 3 August 1916, Page 4

MORE WONDERFUL STILL.

When you burn or scald yourself all that is necessary is to apply Chamberlain’s Pain Balm. This liniment gives immediate relief, also heals the part in one-third the time taken by any other application; but what is more wonderful still is that there is seldom any scar left after Chamberlain’s Pain Balm is used. For sale everywhere. —Advt.

ferred to may reasonably he construed as likely to interfere with recruiting. Though puerile, it is very evident that the letter is directed particularly to a certain section of Ihe community. It is abusive, and clearly shows that tin* point of the writer intended to make is that any person who enlists to fight, for elderly legislators and others who themselves are ineligible for service, or for (he protection of the property ot other people is a. fool, and that, the masses are fools for not waking up to this. It is, in my opinion, ot the (dass of mat ten’ the publication of which the Regulations intend to prohibit. It was argued for the defendant that in a subsequent issue lie specially dealt with the letter, (minting out its falhtcy, hut In the i.-.sne in which the letter appeared it stood by itself, and it is m this wav 1 think I must consider it, for j; may well he that a person reading the letter might never see the subsequent article. I think, therefore, that as a mutter of law, the publication of (he letter was a breach of the Regulations, but I do not think, in view of the particular circumstances, that the case is one for substantial penalty. The defendant will he convicted and fined 20s and ordered to pay £3 3s counsel’s fee.” Mr 11. R. Cooper appeared for defendant. A SEDITIOUS INTENTION. CHARGE AGAINST FLAXWOIIK RR S’ SECR ET A BY. FINE OF £25 IMPOSED.

Judgment was also given in the charge against F. T. Robinson, secretary of the Flax workers' Lnion, of expressing a seditious intention by issuing (lie following circular: — Manawatn Elaxmills Employees’ Union, Brittania Buildings, June 12, J DIG. Dear Comrade, —At the special mass meeting of the above Union, held on Saturday last, June 10th, 101(1, for the purpose of discussing Conscription, the following resolution was unanimously carried: “That this meeting pledges itself hy signature attached to lona provided that it will immediately go on strike the moment the Conscription Act is put into operation to enforce any man against his wish or conscience to join the forces, and thill all fiaxmills he circularised calling on members not present vo give a similar undertaking. Further, this meeting resolves (o act upon any other suggestion I hiit may he considered neeessarv to obstruct the Act. ’ Acting under instructions from the it hove meeting, Mr J. Thorn or myself will visit your place of employment mi Monday, June 10th. lor the purpose of getting signatures to (he above pledge. Kindly notify workers in your district. Yours faithfully, B. 'l'. ROBINSON, Secret ary.

The judgment was as follows; In this ease 11n' defendant is Hiurged with coalmining a breach ol' Kegulalion 15 of the tiegnlalions made on tin- "dtllh day of September, UMH, under the provisions ol' liio Wav l\’eguia I ions AH. Tho jiarl ioula r breach alleged against the defendant is that ho did “by writing ex]ii'oss a sedil ions tut cation. It was proved by the proseonfioti that the oimilav containing the alloyed seditious intention, and signed by the defendant, eame into the hands of Detective-Sergeant but by what means did not appear. It was further proved that on the drd July last Detective-Sergeant Qnirke nulled on the defendant at his office, showed him the writing set out in the circular, and said to him: “It is alleged that this circular was sent round (he llaxworkers for signaiure,” to whieh defendant replied, “Yes, that’s my signature.” Sedition is defined by “Russell on (.‘rimes” as follows: Sedition consists in nets, words or writings intended or calculated under the circumstances of the time to disturb the tranquility of the Stale by creating ill will, discontent, disaffection, hatred or contempt towards the person ol! the King or towards the. Constitution or Parliament, or the Oovernment, or the established institutions of the country, or by exciting ill will between different, classes of the King's subjects, or encouraging any class of them to endea vour to disobey, defy or subvert the laws or resist, the execution or to create tumults or riots, or to do any act, of violence or outrage, or endangering the public peace.” It will he noticed that in ascertaining whether or not the otlenee ot. sedition has been committed the eircunistanees of the time form very material matter for consideration, so that acts which in normal times might pass unnoticed may, if committed in times such as vhe present, lead the person committing them into serums difficulty. The proposal of the meeting as set out in the resolution was in my opinion clearly seditious within the meaning of the above delinition, and in expressing his intention of visiting the place of employment of the person unknown to whom the circular was directed or for whom it was intended for the purpose of getting signatures to the pledge contained hi the resolution, the defendant formed a seditious intention within the mean-

ing of the regulation. The offence, however, consists in expressing a seditious intention, and it was urged by counsel for the defendant that there must ho some evidence of publication by the defendant —something to show that, besides making the writing, he had voluntarily launched it away from himself. I do not think that this U so. The regulation says: “By writ ing express.” The writing is produced and (lie signature is admitted, and that I think is sufficient, but if (his is not correct I think the Court is entitled to draw (lie inference from what passed between the detective-sergeant and the defendant that the letter was despatched by the defendant to the person for whom it was intend.erl in the regular and ordinary way. The hist point raised on behalf of the defendant is that there is nothing to show (hut (he resolution expressed his personal opinion or views, and that its secretary he was acting its the agent or servant of others. This I think is beside the question of whether an offence has been committed against the regulation or not. Whatever may have been his private views, however, and there is nothing to show what they were, it is quite clear that he had voluntarily identified himself with and assisted to carry out, the purpose of a number of persons, who, if they could have their way, would apparently at a time of national stress and danger, and quite regardless of consequences, plunge the country into industrial disorder and chaos rather than abide by a law with which they did not agree, and ia so doing he has brought himself within the regulation. 'Phis ease is quite different from the hist one, and in my opinion calls for a substantial penalty. The defendant will he convicted and fitted £25, with £3 3s counsel’s fee.

Mr H. R. Cooper appeared for the defendant.