ABSENT FROM CAMP.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1405, 3 April 1912, Page 5

ABSENT FROM CAMP.

MILITARY PROSECUTIONS. CASKS DISMISSEDQUESTION' OF JUIUSDICTION. I'lio jurisdiction of the Magistrate'* Court in connection with certain otYences under Hie Dot'onco .Act was challenged recently, when several .vomig men were charged with having, without lawful excuse, t'ailcil to render the personal sonici required under Dart VI of ihn Detente .Act. ISO!), in I hat they wore absent without leave from Iho camp duly ordered at ■Scalonu, which commenced on .Saturday, .March i. The defendants woro Viclor Furnoss and I'. Murphy, Furnoss was represented by Mr. }■'~ M. Slndden, and Murphv by Mr. K. Kennedy. Air. W. G. Kiddoll,'S.M., was on the liench. At tlii? hearing, Mr. Sladdon slated lliat his grounds of defence were: (1) That tha Court, had no jurisdiction to deal with tho case; and (2) Unit: (ho charge had not been prn\rd. »\s to Iho question of jurisdiclion, Ibis information had boon laid under tlio .Act of 'I'M, which were general provision--, and were either impliedly repealed by (ho special provisions of.tlni .Act of 1011, or, it thero was no repeal, the- principle that spcci-.il provisions controlled general conditions applied. Tho only jurisdiction having power to deal Willi those oli'enocs was a military court properly constituted under the regulations, In addressing tlio Court concerning (he <\ia> of Murphy, Mr. Kennedy mid that (he part of the section of the Act of 111011, which provided for penalties for nonregistration, was still subsistont, but thai part Ti-hieh dealt: with penalties for evasion of duties provided for by tha Act was clearly repealed by tlio special provision* made by the later Act. Conns?! al:-n urged that tlio statnlo provided for wjiat service should be rendered by dm members of the Territorial force. In each caso it: was -peciiied I hat so many parados and camps per year must be' attended. I'nlil a. year had elapsed it was impossible to I ell whether or not an oficiioo had been committed, and it was admitted by the plaintiffs that the defendant was under no obligation to serve until November 15, 1011, so a year had not elapsed. Broaches of Discipline Defined. In a lengthy judgment, in the coursa of which Ins Worship quoted freely from the Defence, Act of 19011 ami subsequent amendments, and also from the regulations, the magistrate said:-— "Breaches' o; discipline may be punishixl under the regulations by iine or detention, and in the case of a tine special procedure is provided under which (ho iino mav bo recovered by civil process. By Section SI of the Defence. Act, 1909, every person who, without lawful excuse, evades, or fails to render the personal 'service, required of him -under Part VI. of the Act is liable to a line not exceeding .t"). and shall not be entitled to Iw enrolled as air elector under Division II cf the Legislating Act, 11108, nor to employment, or continuation of employment, in any branch of the Government service. "Defendant Rave no evidence, and it was proved that lie had been notified to attend tho camp at S-'eatoun on March 2 and had failed to do so. It was also proved (hat ho was absent from (ho camp during its seven days' duration. Tho minimum annual fc'uhiiiijj required from each Territorial includes, inter alia, 30 drills (including 20 out-door parades; 12 half-day or 0 whole-day parades); 7 days annual training; in camp.

"It is obvious," commented his Worship, "that a. failure to attend any drill, day parade, or training camp, would bo n breach of discipline, which could bo dealt with by the commanding officer, or by court-martial under Hip regulations. It is,'also, obvious that the failure to attend one drill would net bo regarded as sueli a s::rious breach of discipline as (he failure to attend a day parade or a seven days' camp. The words 'personal service' are not referred to in Part VT, although ir-cd in Section 51, which provides tho penalty for failure to Tender that, service. Tho section is o. general one, and if applicable to suck a case as failure to attend camp it: must also ho applicable to tho ea.so of failure to attend a drill or'a day parade. Disfranchisement. The monetary penalty is, however, only part of (lie punishment for a failure to render personal service. If the.offence is proved, tho defendant is not only liable to n fine, but is not entitled to bo enrolled as an elector under Division II of the Legislature Act, 1903, nor is ho entitled to employment, or continuation of 'employment, in any branch of the Government service. Under the Legislature Act, a person cannot be enrolled as an elector until he is twenty-ono years of ago, so that in the case of offenders under that ago n part of tho penalty provided by the statute, could not take effect upon conviction. Again, that part of the penalty which is intended to deprive a defaulting Territorial of his right to be enrolled as an elector could not be applied in tho ensa of a second conviction for a similar 'offence, because, having been once npplicd, its force would be exhausted. Onus On Military Authorities, "It seems to me that, as all Territorials are subject to military law, and, as (here are regulations in force which givo ample and -peeial powers to the military authorities to deal in dc'ail wilh breaches of discipline, proceedings against offenders for such breaches .should be taken under the regulations, and not under Section 51. ] am not prepared to accept the nrgu.ment that Section H of the Act of 1930. impliedly repeals Section 51 of the Act of 10(11), as, undo;' the rules for the interpretation of statutes, each section can be construed according to its own. subject matter without being •repugnant to the oilier. Further, r.s the personal service is varied in character, and spread over on annual period, defendant should at least have (he opportunity-afforded him, during each training year of rendering the required 'service within that year. As it was stated in evidence that defendant could not have commenced his training befofe November 15, 1011, he has not .vet had an opportunity to render the service required of him within the year. Cases Dismissed. "I think, therefore, that Section 51 does not apply to defendant's case, and (he iiifonmi.'km will bo dismissed." His Worship said that in Murphy's ease the facts were the same, and tho information in that, case, also would bo dismissed. Costs would not be allowed, as tlie mutters were more of the nature of test cases.