DRILL DODGERS.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 225, 21 September 1921, Page 7

DRILL DODGERS.

SUBSTANTIAL FINES IMPOSED.

MILITARY DETENTION" IN DEFAULT

TEX YEARS" LOSS OF CIVIL RIGHTS

"Attend drill or be fined" appears to be the position now taken up by the Defence Department with youths who persistently dodge attending parades. A number of youths came before Mr. J. W. Poynton, f-".M.. at the Court to-day, charged with failing to render personal service. Where there was a reasonable excuse the ollicers in attendance did not press for a penalty, in tbe cases of youths on night work, it was explained that the Department was willing to accommodate them with' day drills; in ■fact, it was quite manifest" there was no desire to make military drill obnoxious. Where there was no real excuse, Mr. Poynton inflicted fines ranging from 20/ to £5, wit* an alternative of military detention. In one case the defendant was deprived of military rights for ten years. This entails not only loss of the right to vote, but the individual cannot be appointed either temporarily or permanently to any position in the public service, but remains still liable for the term of military training.

'*\ou have been having a. good time while others were doing their drill," was the comment made several times by Mr. Poy«iton. In one case a tall young fellow said his objection to parading was that be was too big to wear short.-". His Worship remarked: "If each individual is to be allowed to choose his own uniform, the company would be a motley one." Exemption was granted from military drill in a number of instances where valid reasons were shown by the applicant.

V. J. Aix-hcr did not appear to answer the charge of not doing personal service. As he had only attended one parade this military year a fine of .C"> was imposed, with- costs 7/, or in default 28 days' military detention.

Laurence Callaghan was fined 20/ and costs, and Patrick Neville Dunn 20/. and costs 11.

Wilfred Dudley Hulme gave as a reason for non-attendance at drill that he was driving a cart, and his hours were uncertain. Mr. Poynton remarked: ""It is not fair that while others do their drill you should shirk," and imposed a fine of 20/ and costs.

Frank Johnston gave as a reason that it had not been convenient for him to attend parade. A line of £3 was imposed, with costs 7/.

Reginald Arthur Lawson was also fined £3 and costs, or 21 days' military detention.

Cyril Joseph Moore said he had been away in the country. It was explained he had done no drill for the last 18 months. A f>e of £5 was imposed, or 2S days' military detention. K. E. McQuoid, who stated he had been -travelling, was fined 20/ or 14 days' military detention.

Gordon L. Mitchell gave as a reason for not attending that he suffered from rheumatics.

Mr. Poynton said: "You arc evidently determined not to drill," and imposed a line of £5. or in default 28 days' military detention.

E. J. Mi-Namara .pleaded not'guilty to the charge of failing to render service. Captain Redmond said this man had a uniform but paraded without it. He conducted himself on parade as if it was a joke.

Defendant: "T am too big to wear short pants. I am t*he only one in the Company with them."

A fine of 20/ was imposed,

A. L. Paten was fined 20/. or 14 daysdetention, Lieut. Judson, V.C., stating he had not attended parade this year. C. P. Poison was also fined 20/," and costs 7/.

Walter E. Peters, who had not attended parade for some months, was fined £5, or 2S days' detention. Mr. Poynton remarked: "You have been having a good time while your mates did their drill." William J. Rogers, for only attending three parades since 1019, was fined £3, or 28 days' detention. W. G. Sanft was fined 20/, and costs 7/, and C. R. Stiphbury £3, or 21 days' detention. Leonard William Smith, who did not appear, was fined £5, and deprived of civil rights for ten years.