R.M. COURT, TE AWAMUTU.
Wednesday.—(Before Capt. Jackson, R.M.) Tu Awamutu Cavalry Volunteers.— On the Court opening, Mr Dyer asked permission to draw His Worship's attention to a conviction that had been entered in the books of the Court against Charles Bockett, a former volunteer in the corps, fur £4 17s Gd, fines for neglecting to attend parades, and which hp submitted was irregular.— Mr Gresham, who appeared for Capt. Bruce,'said he would apply for a distress warrant to issue, in order that the matter might be discussed. In reply to His Worship, Mr Gresham said that, he was proceeding under Section 47 of "The Defence Act, ISSG," and that the camp recently held at Raglan was an annual inspection parade. Mr O'Neill appeared for E. P. Havvke, who had been similarly fined, but.no conviction had been entered against him. —His Worship said his impression was that the order w.is bad fur, several reasons. He thought Mr Gresham should have proceeded under Section 52. The alleged offence was that the voluntuers had not attended parades, and Suction 4f appeared to him to deal with offences committed while actually on duty for one of the offences under section 47, it was competent to order a man under arrest, and how could this bo done if the man were not present. Again it seemed to lum that under sectioD 47 it was necessary to have a separate order for each otfence, and in the present case a number of offences had been included iu one order. He did nwt feel willing to grant a distress warrant unless he was ordered to do so by the Supreme Court. Mr Gresham contended that he had proceeded under the right section-and that the annual inspection mentioned in section 52 was hold on onlv one day during the late encampment, and that the power to arrest did not apply to all offences under section 47. Mr Dyer submitted that even assuming his friend was correct in proceeding under section 47 the whole procedure was bad. The interpretation clause of the Act distinguished between commanding officer and commanding officer of corps, the former being the officer in command of the district, and the latter the officer in ' command of a particular corps — section 49 provided that the duplicate order to be lodged with the Clerk of the Court should be under the hand of the commanding officer," who in the present instance would be Col. Shepherd whereas the order was under the hand of Captain Bruce, the officer commanding the corps. As the order was not under the hand of the commanding officer he contended it was valueless. Mr Gresham contended that commanding officer in section 4!) meant the officer commanding the corps, and would only mean officer commanding the district if the volunteer had appealed. Mr O'Neill addressed the Court at some length, and urged that it was immaterial whether the volunteer had appealed or not under the section in question, and that tho expression commanding officer could only have the meaning assigned to it by the Act. He also remarked amidst'some laughter, that hia man.had been tined heavier, than any of the others but rumour had it that when it became known that he was taking a drill Mr Gresham dropped hiin like a hot potato. After considerable discussion His Worship deoided to let the matter stand oyer till next Court, and he would give the matter consideration. Ho would not issue a warrant in the meantime, and as the matter was one of considerable interest in volunteering circles, it would be as well to have the thing finally settled. Mr Gresham stated that he had communicated with Col. Shepherd on the 12th inst., in order that he might submit the case for the opinion of the law officers of tne Crown if he thought proper. Elmhly V. Maoe.— Judgment summonses, Mr Dyer appeared for judgment creditor. The judgment debtor appeared, and consented to pay £1 per month, S. Bond v. Maoe.—Mr Gresham for plaintiff. Judgment for £25 4s lOd, proiriisory note, and interests and costs, £5 us, In this case defendant also agreed to pay £1 per month. J. H. Mandeno (Liquidator) v, Wjf. Momus.—Mr Gresham for plaintiff. Judgment for £13 2s Gd, and oosts £2 2s. VVhunid v. Te Kooti,— Mr Dyer for plaintiff. The defendant was not present, but sent word that he was unable to attend, having broken his arm. Case adjourned to next court day, Costs to be costs iu the cause. Several othor small masters were disposed of.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WT18900225.2.9
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Waikato Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 2749, 25 February 1890, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
758R.M. COURT, TE AWAMUTU. Waikato Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 2749, 25 February 1890, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.