Important Volunteer Decision.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4620, 25 October 1883, Page 2

Important Volunteer Decision.

(Peb Pbess Association.)

WELiiisrrnoN, Yesterday.

At the Supreme Gburt, before Judge Eichmond, the case of Winter v. Parnell was heard. The plaintiff is captain of J Battery, Gisborne, and had fined the defendant for non-appearance at parade ; the^ defendant did not pay the fine, and a complaint was laid before a Magistrate, ;j .rho dismissed it. 'The complainant-ap. i pealed. Mr Justice Eichmond thought no. further light would be thrown" oh the matter by the Volunteer Act, and the regulations ; the whole matter was before him. On the construction of the Act the only jurisdiction to impose these penalties ■is given to justices in the usual t&?ras, and it would be impossible to tonterid bat the ooramsnding officer could impose penalties. Sections 46 and 47 appear to be satisfactory on that. Under the 46th section the commanding officer is the prosecutor, not the judge; under section 47 the commanding officer may be the offender, and the duty 6i% prosecuting would devolve on someone else. The jurisdiction to adjudicate is given to justices alonev The matter is somewhat differently treated by the regulations, but i they must be considered subordinate to the Act. Under No. 268, the commanding officer can fine a Volunteer Is for talking in the ranks ; he was not prepared by any means to say that such a regulation was ultra vires. It is clearly desirable that, for the sake of discipline, such a power should exist ;_but where there is no express power given to the officer to impose a penalty the power must be only in the Justices. In rule 268 it is not stated by whom the penaltyjs to be imposed, therefore in that case the officer is the prosecutor and not the judge, In the present case the defendant was not charged with any offence; he should have been charged with the offence of not appearing on the ground at parade. On the face of the case it is stated that the fine was lawfully imposed, but that is begging the question ; that statement is repugnant to the rest of the case, and cannot be taken as a confessio juris. He must dismiss the appeal with costs.