A STRANGE CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 January 1916, Page 8

A STRANGE CASE.

"OKRiaWAlfttf AND THE WAR," vmmwAWM f/Amam w WnlUnfltofl, Jan, R, A <m»« which should act «« a warning against tho- publication of anything calculated to in'terefre with recruiting eanio before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The defendant was John M. Murrell, the charge being that on October 23rd, in breach of the War Regulations, he "published matter likely to interfere with the recruiting of "His Majesty's forces.". Mo Meredith appeared for the Crown and Mr. F. E, Petherick for the defence. ' The defendant was formerly manager for Huddart, Parker and Co. Being, as he explained, unaplo to "square Christian principles with ordinary business methods," he resigned this position and latterly has been making a modest livelihood by hawking Bibies and tracts throughout the country districts. Among the latter was a brochure entitled "Christianity and War," a reprint v>f articles published in the Labour Leader, a Home newspaper, in which the general proposition was urged that war was incompatible with the teachings of Christ. As the result of his disposing of several copies of the pamphlet a correspondent of the Wanganui Herald drew the attention of the military authorities to the possible effect it might have on recruiting, and the Crown Law Department was moved to take action. The defendant admitted that he was responsible for the circulation of the pamphlet, but urged that he had no intention of preventing recruiting. He had only presented it to people professing Christian principles, and so far as he could remember the only individual of military age who had received a copy from him was his own son. As soon as he found that exception was taken to (lie brochure he made his excuses to the Defence Department and promised that lit! would not issue any more copies. The magistrate took the view that, the pamphlet might have the effect of influencing people, against recruiting, and (ho law had consequently been broken. He mentioned that the maximum penalty for the offence charged was ;CIOO. but he thought a fine of £"> and costs of court would meet the ends of justice. The ease should have the ell'ect of bringing home to publishers (hat tliey must not view their responsibilities too lightly, and it must lie understood that any subsequent olfencc of a similar character would meet with a heavy fine. At the request of defendant's counsel three weeks were allowed Tor the payment of the penalty inflicted.