DEFENCE PROSECUTIONS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 70, 22 March 1912, Page 7

DEFENCE PROSECUTIONS.

IS THERE JURISDICTION ? NEW POINTS RAISED. Three young men who, though registered as Territorials, failed to attend parades, were proceeded against in the Magistrate's Court, before Mr. W.. G. Eiddell, S.M., to-day. F. Murphy was charged that, without lawful excuse, he bailed to render the personal service required of him under part section 6 of the Defence Act, 1909, m that he absented himself, without leave, from the camp of instruction held at Seatoun in March. Senior-Sergeant Darby prosecuted and v Mr. E. Kennedy appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given that defendant had failed to attend at the camp; also that, he had not attended any parades at all. v It is provided in the regulations that during the year a Territorial must attend six whole-day or twelve half-day parades, and twenty-six drills of one and a-half hours' duration; also that he must put in seven days in a training camp. •Counsel for the defence objected to lie jurisdiction. He contended "that the tfence alleged was one against discipline, and not one which made defendant liable to criminal prosecution. The proper proceedings were proceedings by the military authorities, who had authority, as. previously under the volunteer system, to fine a person for a breach of discipline. If such fine were not paid there was a civil remedy, as expressly provided for by section 51 of the Act of 1910. No person could, therefore, be imprisoned or fined for not attending parades after he had registered, but the remedy (if any) was in the hands of the officers. The second point raised was that the part of the section of the Act of 1909 which provided for penalties for nonregistration was fitill eubsistent, but that part which dealt with penalties for evasion of duties provided for" by the Act was clearly repealed by tho special provisions made by the later Act. Counsel also urged that the statute provided for what service should be rendered by the members of the Territorial force. In each case it was specified that so many parades and campe per year must be attended, and until a year had elapsed it was impossible to tell whether or not an offence had been committed, n It wan admitted by the officers that defendant was under no obligation to serve until the 15tb of November. 1911, so that a year had not yet elapsed. Counsel repeated that the only remedy the Department had till a year had elapsed was for an officer to impose a fine, and then to proceed civlly to enforce it. It was stated by an officer of .tho Territorial* during the hearing that the Seatoun camp was the only camp of its kiiid_ during the year. His Worship reserved his decision. Charges of a similar nature were preferred against Daniel Sullivan and Victor Furnetis. Mr. Hislop appeared for Sullivan, and after entering a. plea of guilty explained that at the time the camp was being held Sullivan wae offered a job id the city. He was told that the position would not be held for him, and he deeded not to attend the camp. He had, however, no desire to shirk his duties, and subsequently he put in an application to be allowed to attend the Easter camj) A nominal penalty only was imposed he being ordered to pay court costs (7s). Furuees, .who was represented by Mr. D. Sladden, pleaded not guilty. The defence raised was somewhat similar to that in the case of Murphy Counsel contended that all members of the Defence Forces were subject to military law, whethe^ in peace or war provision being made in the Act for the liolJin;; of co'U'te-martial. It"was also submitted that the offence had not been moved. Judgment was also reserved in this case