OFFICER CHARGED

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 269, 9 August 1943, Page 6

OFFICER CHARGED

Army Court-Martial At Whangarei CLASH WITH ADJUTANT Dominion Special Service. AUCKLAND, August 7. Charges of using insubordinate language to a superior officer, alternatively with conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline in that he used certain language to a superior ofhcer, and on being absent without leave between 10.45 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Jnly 19 were denied by Second Lieutenant Galley Akeroa Bristow before a general court-martial at Whangarci. After a lengthy hearing he was found not smlD on the first charge. The Court s finding on the other two charges will be referred to the confirming officer. The adjutant of Bristows unit, Captain Lewis K. Hughes, gave evidence that when Bristow returned to oamp on July 19 and was asked by witness if he had secured permission to leave camp he replied that he had not. After further conversation Bristow lost his temper and used the language with which he was charged. Told to consider himself under arrest he repeated the language, which had been overheard by another ofiicer and Cross-examined by Lieutenant-Colonel L P Leary, defending officer, witness said he had never disliked Bristow, but had never been attracted to him, either while he was in the ranks or after being commissioned. There had been several scenes between them. He did not remember saying that he would get Bristow’s commission taken from him, but had said that Bristow deserved to lose his commission. If an officer gave evidence that witness had said that he would do his best to have Bristow lose his commission he could not contradict it. Contentions for Defence.

As the only Maori in the mess, Bristow may have been shy, witness said. He had complained against Bristow that he was too friendly with his men. Bnstow at the time of the incident which led to the court-martial was acting company commander and while there was no prohibition on his leaving camp it would have been courtesy to notify ' his absence. For the defence, Lieutenant-Colonel Leary contended that in this case the adjutant had metaphorically divested himself of his rank, indulged in a brawl, and then had reassumed his rank and complained to the colonel of Bristows conduct. Bristow was a half-caste Maori, aged 24, married, with three children, and had an excellent Army record, having been selected for officer training and passing out second in his.class. Shy and reserved, he had been driven to association with the ranks by the attitude of the adjutant. . When on returning to camp Bristow claimed the privileges of an officer and stated his belief that he was entitled to leave camp, Lieutenant-Colonel. Leary continued, he received the stinging insult that Captain Hughes did not consider him an ofiicer. Bristow surely could not be held blameworthy for any retort he made. Statement by Accused.

Giving evidence on his own behalf, Bristow said that as company commander he had not thought it compulsory to secure permission to leave camp, Captain Hughes had told him that he did not consider him an ofiicer and he had retorted by telling Captain Hughes what he thought of him. Captain Hughes had not remonstrated with him about being too much with his men. Witness gave his version of various clashes with Captain Hughes. Second-Lieutenant Charles A. Murdoch gave evidence of hearing Captain Hughes remark that he did not consider Bristow an officer and that he would have Bristow’s commission taken from him. Bristow was an efficient officer.

After an adjournment the Court acquitted Bristow on the first charge. Giving evidence of character, Captain Hughes stated, in cross-examination, that he had twice endeavoured to have the court-martial proceedings stopped as he did not consider the case suitable for court-martial. He asked the Court to take thia view into consideration. The Court, after an adjournment, stated that it would not alter its decision, though the adjutant’s statement. would be taken into consideration in mitigation of penalty.