FULL COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 1, 26 September 1917, Page 7

FULL COURT

THE CASE OF JOHN FISHER SKIPPER CONVICTION APPEALED AGAINST ■ The Chief Justice (Sir Eobert Stout), Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Hosking yesterday morning sat as a Full Court to hear an appeal removed from the Supreme Court by Mr. Justice .Cooper. The appellant was John Fipher Skipper, who was convicted in the Magistrate's Court at Botorua of having committed a breach of the War- Ee"ula.tioii3 by making a statement likely to interfere with recruiting. He was jentenced to' three ■months' imprisonment, but made a general appwi! to the Supreme Court against his conviction. This appeal was removed to the Full Court. Mr. J. B, Eeed, ICC, and Mr. H. van Staveren appeared yesterday for the.appellant, and Mr. J. AV. Halmond, IC-C, Solicitor-General, for the Crown. ■ Mr. Eeed. said that the appellant, was convicted under.that part of the regulations which said: "No person shall publish, or cause or permit, to be published, any statement or matter likely to interfere with the recruitiiiß of His Majesty's Forces." The evidence git en in the Magistrate's Court was that- at a, social gathering at Matata (a small settlement in the Bay of Plenty) Skipper used words alleged to be detrimental to recruiting. It was made clear that Skipper was an absolutely loyal man. It there was anything in heredity. Skipper's heredity would teud to make him so. His mother was a sister of Lord John Fisher, and he himself was a. direct descendant of Lord. Nelsou. The evidence was that he had taken a-prominent part in all patriotic movements, and had subscribed something like .C'soo to patriotic organisations., His district was notable for i(s recruiting,' since it took only one ballot to exhaust the whole of tho First Division there. He had volunteered three times, l>ut had been rejected on. account of his'age— 53. years. He had no sous, but his iive daughters had offered their, services as nurses. On the occasion on which he made the utterances that gave vise lo tho charge against him, 'he was under the influence of liquor, and also . ot i anger against the military authorities 1 in Auckland at the way in which certain returned soldiers were treated. Among the soldiers in question was the bon-in-law of the appellant, who had given iip a good position to go to the front.. Skipper had considered that the men were neglected, and he had assisted them by giving them money and cigarettes. He had gone back- to .Matuta full of indignation. At the gathering that -he attend, ed speeches of welcomo were made to his son-in-law. About half-past eleven, after supper, Skipper got on his t'eot, and, starting quietly enough, soon worked himself up until at the end he made certain remarks which, to , say the least, were exceedingly objectionable and painfully free. It would be shown that .the only person of military age present was a Maori, who actually enlisted that night. Next day Skipper went out with a, Maori recruiting officer to a- pa and addressed the Natives on recruiting. Ho paid about .C2OO worth of debts for Maoris who 'wished to join the Forces, and the general result was that two coachloads of recruito .went oft wxt day. The questions before tho Court, said Mr Eeed, were three. The liret wrs whether the Military Service Act destroyed the efficaty of the part of the regulations under which the appellant had been convicted; tho second, whether, if the Military Service Act had not destroyed the emcacy of that branch, the statements of the appellant were likely to interfere with recruiting; «nd the third whether the Supreme Court, if it dismissed a general appeal, had power to revise a seatonce passed by a Magistrate, i The Court heard argument }>P° n the questions, and reserved its decision.