DEFENCE ACT PROSECUTION.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 4, Issue 70, 16 August 1915, Page 4

DEFENCE ACT PROSECUTION.

Police Constable as Defendant.

Employee's Absence Fpom Camp.

The novelty of a Police Constable figuring as the defendant to a prosecution waß enacted at the Mercer Magistrate's Court on Thursday last, when before Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M., Constable Bevan, police officer in charge of the Mercer district, was called on to answer a charge brought against bim by the Defence Department of having prevented a Territorial, named Clarence Moyle, whom he employed to work on his farm at Te Kauwhata, from attending the annual training camp held in Auckland between the 17th and 29th of May last.

Defendant pleaded not guilty. Major E. H. Northcroft, officer commanding the No. 4 Group, represented the Defence Department and proceeded to state his case, but was interrupted by defendant, who said tbat he understood that although Major Northcroft practised as a barrister and solicitor he was a salaried officer of the Deience Department, and he (the defendant) would like to know in which capacity he was appearing. Major Northcroft replied that he was appearing in his military position, as a representative of the Defence Department. Defendant: You should be in military uniform. The Major proceeded, and stated that Muyle was warned by Ihe Adjutant of bis Company that he would have to attend the May Camp in Auckland, which would open on the 17th of May, but several letters were received by the Defence authorities in Aucklurd and Hamilton from Constable Bevan, statirg that he was unable to get a man to take Movie's place in milking the cowb. One of the communications waß answered by Captain Garland to the effect that Moyle would not be excused from attending the camp. A further communication was received from defendant, stating that it would be impossible for bim to allow Moyte time off to enter the camp. Movie did not put in an appearance, and was again warned that he would have to enter the casual camp, which was held for the convenience of those who could not get away for the camp in May. He also failed to attend that camp, and stated that he was prevented from going into the camp. Fredrick Augustus McDonald, Adjutant of the 16th Regiment, deposed that Moyle was not present at either camp.—ln cross-examina-tion bv defendant, witness said he bore no animosity in tbe matter. When he went out to interview Moyle at defendant's farm, in company with Sergeant-Major Ansell, under instructions received from Major Northcroft Moyle was in bed and was very nervous. Moyle had written out a statement to the effect that he could not go to the camp because he could not get leave from his employer. The defence submitted by Constable Bevan was that owing to tbe isolated position of the farm he was unable to get a substitute fur Moyle, and although he wrote to the Defence Department in Hamilton stating his position, scant notice was taken of the communication. He produced correspondence connected with the case, which he received from the Farmers' Union, in which it was stat-:d tbat they were trying to eradicate the present principle adopted by the Defence Department in reference to the necessary attendance at camps of Territorials who worked on farms, and suggested that tbe Department might have used a little more thought in connection with the proceedings. Several copies of letters in which he had explained his position to tbe Defence authorities were read by defendant. He stated that Major Northcroft bad prevented Mcyle from baving dinner with him that day, and bad warned him tbat if he said that he was not prevented from going to camp he would have him put in gaol. Moyle tried, on defendant's suggestion, to obtain assistance from several farm houses, so as to get away to the camp, but owing to the scarcity of labour in the district was unabls to eGgage anybody in bis place. He (defendant) was not an anti-miiltamt, and was always at the disposal of tbe Defence Departmei to assist them. Moyle did nut receive his notice to go into camp until the day alter the camp started. There were other young men in the district who did not go to the camps. Clarence Moyle stated, in evidence, that defendant told him that if he could get a man to replace him he could go to the camp, and he went three miles away from the farm to obtain a substitute in his place but he was unsuccessful. Tbe contents of the statement he signed were dictated to him by Adjutant McDonald, who arrived at the farm in company with SergeantMajor Ansell, and who told him that he was "out" to protect him and that Constable Bevan might turn round on him. Major Northcroft had warred him that day that if he said he was not prevented from going to camp he would have him put in gaol, and further advised him not to have dinner with defendant.

Croßs-examined by Major Northcroft, Moyle said be had Jnot been speaking to defendant. The written statement was correct. What he (Major Northcroft) had tolu him that day was that it he said anything contrary to his previous statement he would be liable for perjury, and regarding tbe lunch Major Northcroft told SergeantMajor Ansell to arrange for bis lunch. He bad told Major Northcroft that he could have gone to CJmp if he had arranged for assistance, but otherwise be would have had to remain on the farm. To the Magistrate, witness stated that the statement he had signed should have read "1 was anxiouß to go to camp but could not go

because 1 could nut get assistance." He considered it was bis duty to remain on the farm under the circumstances. He Dad r m- rked to the constable that he was the only one "singled out" in the district to go to camp.

Major Northcroft suggested that Constable Bevan did not exert himself enough in the matter of obtaining assistance and suggested that he should have sent his son to relieve Moyle. The Magistrate: There would have beeu another prosecution, Major Northcroft. 'lhe Magistrate remarked that it was an awkward case. The Defence Act was clear on the matter, but the notice which was posted to Movie arrived late, and accordingly did not give bim reasonable opportunity to get to camp. The note was hopeless, as it shoud have been posted two or three weeks ahead. Major Northcroft then suggested that the charge should be withdrawn.

The Magistrate agreed, remarking tbat it would be the more praceful act. Moyle was to blame. He was an empty-headed IndividUHl who would say anything and fall in with any suggestion. His evidence disapproved of any suggestion of irregular means having been employed to get his evidence.

Tbe charge was accordingly withdrawn.