CHARGE OF HARBORING A DESERTER.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 November 1917, Page 6

CHARGE OF HARBORING A DESERTER.

A MAHOEXUI CASK. IXI'ORJIATJ OX DISMIS3ED. Charle? Croall, storekeeper and farmer, of Mahoeuui, was charged at the Magistrates Court yesterday with bavins; retained in his service a man named Ernest Stanley Crawford; who was absent without leave from the Expeditionary Force.

Mr. J. 11. Quilliam appeared for the lefendant, who pleaded not guilty, and the ease for the prosecution was eon-; ducted by Sub-Inspector Ilutton, who ! outlined the facts of the case. Crawford was duly enrolled, and was gazetted 011 June fi as having been drawn in the Sth ballot, but remained on defendant's- farm, engaged in bushfelling and fencing, until September 20, when he was arrested by Constable McGregor, and handed to the military authorities. On October 11 a statement had been received bv the police from Cecil Clarice, laborer, to llie effect that he had worked with Crawford for about a month. Ht himself received no wages, as he was working off a bill, and he did not know mirier what arrangement Crawford was working. Together they had felled about 40 acres of bush and scrub, and had remained together until Crawford was arrested. Crawford had erected about, 25 chains of fencing just before 'his arrival at the farm, but lie could not say whether any payment was made for that work. William Hillman, a brother-in-law of Charles Croall, had also made a statement on the same date, in which he stated that when he went to the store as assHant, Crawford was erecting a bountla . fence between the defendant's-, and cighber's property, On June 12 defenrtiv.t asked him to witness a receipt for Crawford's wages. A postscript onr the receipt showed that his engagement had been terminated, as lie liaii been called up in the ballot, and he did not know of Crawford's having received any wages since that date, though he had "remained on until ho was arrested, doing a little fencing and bushfelling, and apparently did practically what lie chose in the matter of work.

Constable McGregor, in his evidence, stated that he had spoken to defendant, who admitted 'having received the gazette showing that the maji had been called up. He (the defendant) stated that he had paid him off. but as lie was an old friend, he did not want to turn him out. Further, 'he stated that his own'ideas were similar to Crawford's in regard to military service, and added that ho had held those ideas for twenty years, and that a brother of his was undergoing a penalty for having failed to comply with the regulations in England.

He received a warrant for Crawford's arrest on September 28, ant handed him over to the military authorities at Hamilton.

Cross-examined hv Mr. Quilliam, witness said hi had known defendant for about 3 years, but. did not know Crawford previous to the date of arrest. Ifo had several times called at the defendant's place, and on one occasion had teen asked if he had ct-me for "Ernie," when he had replied that he had. no authority to do sc. He knew Crawford was on the farm, but did not know if the .Hamilton police were aware of this. He .wss on good terms with the defendant, but had never pointed out to him that he was doing wrong in keeping the man on the fjrn, he did not think it was his duty lo <!o so; but when he returned from ITiuuil'on, after handing over Crawfi.r.l tc the niHtary authorities, ho had told defendant that a prosecution for harboring a deserter might be made. Defendant had then produced a receipt rhowing that the mail had been paid off on .June J2.

Mr. Quilliam submitted that the information should bo dismissed. It was incumbent on the prosecuton to prove three things—first, that Crawford was the rewvist wTTo .had been called up; second, i.hat lie had been absent without leave: an:l third, that the defendant retained him in his service. If that was proved, the only possible defence would be that Croall did not know that the man had been called up, or had been absent without leave. The fact that an Ernest -Stanley Crawford had been called up was to be found in the Gazette, but there was nothing to prove that the man on Croall's farm was the Crawford referred to. In any ease, defendant had shown that he was not willing to take the risk of employing the man. Sub-Inspeetor Ilutton submitted that the fact that the receipt was made out showed that defendant knew that the man on his premises was the Crawford referred to.

His Worship said that the appearance of a man's name in the gazette was not enough on which to base a charge of absence without leave; evidence should be produced in court to show that the man had been actually called to camp. Sub-Inspector Ilutton said that the Gazette had been considered sufficient evidence in all other prosecutions of a like nature. Counsel for the defence held that there was no shadow of evidence that Crawford was absent without leave, for it was not proved that he had received notice to proceed to camp, and that point alone was fatal to the. prosecution. The documentary evidence from Clark and Fillman showed that the defendant had ceased to employ Crawford on June 12. The facts were that the defendant came out from Scotland some time, ago, and took up a farm and post office store at Mahoenui. Crawford came to work for him recently, and when defendant found that he had not given notification of j his change of address, lie (defendant) had himself written to the military authorities. There had been a doubt all through that the Crawford called up was the man on his farm, but when the Gazette was reecived, he took no risk, and paid him off immediately. He did not employ the man after June 12. There was no question of concealment, and it could not be proved that any inducement was offered to the man to remain. Crxwford had done nothing for a few days, and had then gone hushfelling voluntarily. Moreover, the defendant's wife was at the time unwell, and was attended bv a nurse whom Crawford married during the time he was on the farm. The defendant was worried, and consequently could rot sive much attention to the matter. The Act was net framed to penalise a man who had acted as defendant had done. A wiser man would have told the man to go, but the defendant took the view that Crawford was an old friend, and, though he offered no inducement, for him to stay on, nevertheless allowed him to do so. He had never endeavored to influence him to (iisobev military' commands, although lie held similar views j Charles Croall said that before ho learns ta'New Zealand from Scotland 8

vears ago. lie had served in a volunteer corps for about. !) years. Tt was untrue that he had pro-(!c-rman leanings, but held views of "peace by negotiation.'' The Gazette contained the name of Ernest Stanley Crawford, but the address vas Te Onga, a place mili-j away. Consequently there had been a great deal ol doubt, b'.i!. I,j be sale, lie iiad paid the man off when the Gazette reached him, though hi invited him to stay on as a guest until lie went to camp" Tie had considered his responsibility ended. Crawford had a certain amount of stock of his own, and in order to prevent it from straying had erected part of a houndarv fence Tic had never done anvthing to prevent his going into camp, and had pointed out to Mm that he was liable to arrest for failing to do so. He had told others of the conditions, and had advised iho Con'missioner of Schools not to employ him when the latter had offered him a position.

After Crawford had been handed over to the military authorities, Constable McGregor had called in. and had told him that Hi-? inspector at Hamilton had made inquiries as to what conditions Crawford was staying with him, and had hinted that a prosecution of harboring a, deserter might follow. That was the first intimation that he had of possible trouble, and it came as a shock to liim. as tie considered that he had not broken the law.

iSub-Inspector Hutton asked why a receipt was made out if there was any doubt as to the identity <jf the man, and defendant answered that it was done to mak" his position thoroughly safe. To a certain extent he was in sympathy with the man, but had not attemped o influence him.

His Worship said that the prosecution had not proved that the man was absent .without leave. The point was did the defendant retain Crawford in his service? He 'liad allowed him to remain at the farm as a friend. There was no evidence to show that the relation of master and servant had existed since June 12, the date* of the signing of the receipt. The defendant had acted foolishly, perhaps even wrongly, and should have seen that the man went away, but there was r.o Act that provided that one man must take steps to see that another did his duty. The information would be dismissed.