"NEW PLYMOUTH'S KNYVETT"

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 272, 7 April 1911, Page 2

"NEW PLYMOUTH'S KNYVETT"

A COURT OF INQUIRY. CAPTAIN MILLS' CASE. Yesterday morning at the Drill Hall a Court of Inquiry sat to investigate charges of insubordination made against Charles Thomas Mills, holding a captain's commission in the Taranaki Guards, and' now in open arrest.

Major William Meldrum, 3rd Regiment, W.M.R.. was president of the Court, and its other members were Captain Frank Rymon, R.N.Z.A.. and Captain li. W. 11. Hamerton. C Company, Patea, Lieut. F. H. Lampen, area group officer, prosecuted. Lieut.-Colonel Malone, commanding the infantry battalion, was also present. The charge-sheet, details of which were published in yesterday's News, was read to the prisoner, with the exception of charge No. 1, which was withdrawn at the instance of the prosecutor, who explained that the charges were laid under paragraphs 174 and IS3 of the general regulations of the New Zealand Defence Forces, and. paragraph 453, King's Regulations. The Court called Thomas Currie List, editor of the Taranaki Daily News. In his absence from New Plymouth, the evidence of Claude Lock-hart Jewell, journalist, employed on the News, was taken in respect to the publication of a letter over the name of "J. C. Davies" in the issue of March 11 last, and which jt was charged was instigated by the prisoner. Witness was asked to produce the original of the letter mentioned, and requested the president to quote the authority for demanding a document, the property of a civilian. It was further asked if Colonel Chaytor, O.C. of the district, had a legal right to "command" the presence of a civilian, or to order the production of a private document.

The president quoted regulations giving the necessary power to call evidence,! and explained that for the purposes of a military inquiry, a witness might be dealt with as in a civil case, and was liable to similar penalties for disobedience. It was elicited by the witness that the _ subpoena, although not under the sign'manual of Colonel Chaytor, or of the president of the Court (being merely initialled by a subordinate officer), was a proper document, the summons of which must be obeyed by either soldier or civilian. Witness did not know whose handwriting the document contained. The original letter on which the charges were based was then handed to the Court. J. C. Davies gave evidence that Ire had supplied the letter to the editor of the Taranaki Daily News, but not the heading. He desired to write on the subject under discussion, but wanted to get at the facts. He therefore approached the prisoner in order to obtain the facts. Captain Mills was asked by him to note down some information, and part of the exhibit was in the handwriting of prisoner and part in his own handwriting. Captain Mills, during the interrogation of the witness by the president, submitted that all questions must be in the direction of proving that he had "instigated" the letter. The president replied that no irrelevances had occurred, and prisoner quoted Webster's definition of "instigate." In reply to question from the prisoner, witness said that Captain Mills did not instigate the communication either to the witness or to the newspaper. It was at witness' request the information was supplied by the prisoner. He would take full responsibility for handing the letter to Mr. List, editor of the Taranaki Daily News. The president asked witness what part »f the letter had been written by him and what part by the prisoner. Witness gave the necessary information. He did not know where the prisoner wrote his portion of the letter. He had discussed the matter with the prisoner many times during the time the latter had been in open arrest on the last occasion. The arrest was a matter of general conversation. He had himself communicated 'with the Defence Department on the

subject, and Colonel Chaytor had in-

terviewed him on the matter. Lieut. Lampen read that portion of the letter appearing in the News alleged to contain statements reflecting on the conduct of a superior officer, as follows: ' "I shall, lodge an appeal against the verdict and sentence, and will put forth, amongst others, the fact that the finding is absolutely against the weight of evidence; of course, it is a verdict that one might have anticipated in such a faked-up case, seeing that the Board was composed of (1) the President (Lieut.-Col. Okey), who, I have been given to understand, was responible for Captain Bellringer beinW first placed on the staff as adjutant(2) Captain Brown, of Wellington who is a staff officer and subordinate to the officer who is responsible for the promotion of a junior over me, which is the grievance that I have put forward; and .(3) Captain Wright, of Hawera, who is an officer young in experience."

It was agreed that the evidence »iven in regard to charges two and three on the sheet, should be taken as also applying to the charge last named. The prisoner desired that the charges should be pinned down to the question of "instigation." He would plead "not guilty" to instigation. The trouble had arisen through his statement of a Grievance in August last. He had "been placed m open arrest twice as a result of a small request he made to the Defence Department months ago. The president explained that the Court of Inquiry was sitting merely to deal with the charges already read.' Its function was merely to report. The Court's only wish was to give him an impartial hearing, and it could do absolutely nothing in the matter of the grievance. The prisoner should p „t it m a letter, which would be attached to the Court's report. ■Lieut. Lampen asked the Court's permission to amend one of the charges, to which the prisoner objected. Captain Symons said it did not matter about the error, if any, in the charge-sheet. The business of' the Court was merely to collect evidence. It already had all the necessary evidence to lav before the conveiiiiitr officer. The report of the Court will' be forwarded to the proper authority.