THE DEFENCE ACT

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 10713, 7 December 1912, Page 5

THE DEFENCE ACT

CASE OF FRANCIS O'CONNOR

In the Magistrate's Court at MasterUin yesterday, before- Mr L. G. R-eid, s'm., Franci.-. Owen O'Connor was charged with a breach of the Defence Act in having tailed to render personal service, and in having re-fus-ed to fa koine oath of allegiance. The case had been -adjourned from previous sittings of the Court, to enable a roll to be procured from Ashburton . His Worship stated that tho roll before the Court showed tliat tho defendant had been enrolled at Ashburton. The onus of disproving the enrolment rested upon the defendant. Mr Moran, who appeared for tho defendant, urged that his client had been improperly enrolled. Ho had been posted direct to the Territorials, and there was no power under the Act to permit of this being done. Evidence was given by Lieut. Purdy that the defendant had attended a camp in Masterton, and had left without authority. He had been served with a notice to take the oath of allegiance. Sergeant Miller stated that the <„'efendant had been previously convicted and fined for a breach of tho Act. Lieut. Purdy produced a roll showing that the defendant had attended camp in Masterton, but it was stated that this roll was not the original one.

His Worship said it wa<i necessary that the original roll should be prod\icod. Mr Moran asked that the information be dismissed. There had been no acquiescence on the part of the defendant to his enrolment. He had gone to camp merely to protest. His Worship expressed the opinion that the Department should be represented by counsel. Technical defences were continually being set up in these cases. Tho case would be further adjourned until December 20th. Mr Moran asked for costs, but His Worship said this question would be considered later. Leonard Augustus Simmonson, Thomas Byrn. Clarence Frederick Miller (cadets), Ernest John Henry Land, Cyril Varnham (senior cadet*), and Donald Tasman Stewart, were charged with having failed to render the personal service required by them under the Defence Act. Simmonson and Byrn were each fined 10s and 7s costs Steward? and Varnham 5s and <"s costs each. Land and Miller were ordered to nay costs 7s. His Worship warned Ihe defendants of the serious penalties they were liable to under the new Act, Parliament being determined to compel Territorials to render the service required of them.