WILFUL ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 75, 25 September 1918, Page 4

WILFUL ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE

A SOLDIER FINED.

(BT ' TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.)

CHRISTCHURCH, 24th September. At the Rangiora Magistrate's Court today, before Mr. Bailey, 5*.M., Ernest Frederick Ward, who appeared in khaki, was charged that he did wilfully attempt to deceive the Military Service Board in the exercise of its jurisdiction by stating that his father was not assisting on his farm, and that his father was keeping a hotel in Dnnedin at the time accused was giving evidence before the board, accused well knowing such statements to be false. A plea of guilty was entered. Counesl said accused, who was 23 years of age, up to the time of the offence, had been of unblemished character. Accused and his brother had a farm at Glenmark. The brother was called up with the 27th Reinforcements, and left the accused to look after his interests. In his anxiety to preserve his own and his brother's interest in the property , his 'judgment failed him in the commission of the offence with which he stood charged. Accused had gone into camp, had gained his lance-corporal's stripe, and the camp authorities gave him. an excellent record. Accused desired him to express deep contrition for his offence, which he felt would be a blemish on his character for" life. He had suffered punishment already by the wide publicity given to the case by the newspapers. Cpt/nsel asked the Magistrate, to treat the accused exactly as he would be treated if before a Judge and seeking probation, which he had no doubt' would, under the circumstances, be granted,The Magistrate, after commenting on the ..seriousness of the offence, said the case was an exceptional one, in fact the first yet dealt with. He was glad to see that the young man had done well wMlst in military service, and he did not wish to sand him to prison. He"> thought a fine would meet the case, but he wished it known that any offender coming hefcre him on a similar charge, would be' severely dealt with. Accused was fined £10, with costs. , . ■ ' .