MEN COURT MARTIALLED

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 November 1940, Page 5

MEN COURT MARTIALLED

DISOBEDIENCE ALLEGED “A SIT-DOWN STRIKE” . [per press association.] CHRISTCHURCH, November 28. Six gunners belonging to the 18th Heavy Battery were brought before a District Court-Martial at Battery Point barracks, to-day, charged with disobeying lawful commands. Evidence of the consumption of considerable liquor in the barracks :was given during’the hearing. ' The.. Court consisted of Major W. V. R. Fletcher, Ist Battalion,-' Nelson, Marlborough and West Coast Regiment, president; Captain C.'B. K. de Castro, No. 2 Training Battalion, Burnham; Captain L. W'. Tosswill,' Z Company, National Reserve, Lyttelton; Lieutenant R. McCrone, M.C., 17th Heavy Battery, New Zealand Artillery. Waiting members of the Court were Captain P.""R. Wilberg, Ist Southland Regiment, and Lieutenant C. F. de Jouie, No. 2 Training Battalion, Burnham. Lieutenant G. L. Flank, 18th Heavy Battery, was prosecutor, and Second-Lieuten-ant J. B. Deaker, Ist Otago Regiment, was defending officer. Major G. T. Weston was judge advocate. Four officers for instruction were also sworn in. The accused were Gunners John Francis Harvett, Cecil James McIntosh, Edward Worth Newenham, Wallace Raynard Parker, Kama Tau, and Robert Avon Watson, and they were charged with having on November 20, disobeyed ' the' lawful commands of a superior officer, in that they refused to take over watch duty when ordered to do so by the officer of the watch, Lieutenant Roberts, M.C. The prosecutor said that on the evening of November 20, the subsection to which the accused belonged were paraded and marched to the gun stations. They refused to go on duty' unless Bombardier Ohlson was their Number 1. The men charged repeated their refusal, and were placed under arrest. “This unit is not a training unit,” said the prosecutor, “it is for the defence of the country. If attack comes from the sea —a n ever present danger—the battery would be in the front line. I submit that the offenders must be dealt with severely.”

Lieutenant F. C. Roberts, of the 17th Heavy Battery, said he was watch officer on the night of Novembei' 20. He was informed that the men at the guns refused watch duty, and went down to the war shelter. He ordered the men to go on duty, including the six accused. The men refused. Gunner Newnham and Gunner Watson said they would not go on duty unless Bombardier Ohlson was their No. 1, in charge of the stib-section. Major Lydn arrived at the battery about' ID minutes later and addressed the men. The six accused still refused to go on watch. To the defending officer: As officer of the Watch he was in charge of the battery observation post and had to see that the guns were manned. Among the sub-sections, the No. 1 would detail the for each guh'Z'lt was’not parZof the officer’s job. He held the non-commissioned officer responsible. The watch took over at 6 p.m., and was on duty till 1 a.m. He was relieved from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. by Lieutenant Purcell. About 6.50 p.m., he was informed that there was trouble at the guns. He went down and saw one look-out on the guns. He did not see two look-outs. He asked Bombardier Ohlson what was the trouble, and was told the men refused to go on duty. He did not memember Mr. Hursthouse saying he had placed the men under arrest. He asked each man personally if he refused duty and took the names. The defending officer: What was your actual order that the men disobeyed? This is important, and I want your answer. Was it an order of an inquiry? Witness: There was no question of an inquiry. I said: “You’ll go on duty.” They refused to go on duty. They refused to obey unless Bombardier Ohlson was No. 1. Was it not that they said they would not go on watch when their turn came? The prosecutor objected to the question, the objection being allowed. Continuing, the witness said he could not remember the exact order he gave. He told the men: “You will go on duty or you will be put under arrest.” He did not know if the look-out was changed at 7.30. Later he heard Major Lyon say: “I order you to go on duty.” Battery Sergeant-Major A Le Petit gave evidence that he was present when Lieutenant Roberts ordered the six accused to go on duty. They refused to go on duty. He was present when the commanding officer, Major Lyon, talked to the men. They still refused duty. The defending officer objected that the men were not charged with disobeying Major Lyon, but Lieutenant Roberts. The judge advocate said the Court could take note of facts relevant to the case.

Continuing, the sergeant-major, said he heard a bit of shouting in the men’s quarters earlier in the evening. When it got rather loud, he looked out and the noise stopped. After he went down about the trouble at the gun he saw the accused. They were not intoxicated. There were no men on duty on the guns. It was unusual for the f whole watch to go on look-out duty. He took another sub-section from the barracks and placed them on duty. THE DEFENCE. That there was no case to answer was the submission of the defending officer. The whole thing had been hurried and the men put on trial before any offence had been committed. The men were charged with failing to take over watch duty at 7.30 p.m. The only evidence on the point was that they did take over watch duty at 6 p.m. Here they had men on duty being ordered to go on duty. The point was that they had answered that they would not take over their look-out duty when their turn came. That opportunity to refuse when the time came was never given to them: He quoted the Manual of Military Law, which laid down that , a lawful command musLbe given to an individual. Here they had a section of lads charged collectively with a crime that they could only have committed individually. Neither Mr. Roberts nor the" ser-

geant-major could give evidence as to the actual command. “These Tads are charged with a serious offence,” said the officer, “and we want the clearest possible evidence. If there is any doubt, then the accused should have the benefit of it. There must be evidence of a direct order being disobeyed. For instance, if an officer says to a private, ‘You will parade at 3 o’clock,’ and the private replies, ‘I will not,’ he certainly is hot guilty of disobeying a command until 3 o’cldck comes and he does not' parade,” The prosecutor said he would emphasise what he had said before. The port of Lyttelton must be defended and they could not wait five minutes tp see if a man was going on duty. There was nothing in the rules of procedure to sustain the point raised by the defence, announced the president. The Court, however, would reserve the point for further consideration. Gunner Mclntosh, one of the accused, said he was 20' years of age, and had been at Battery Point sincethe outbreak of war. He was attached to No. 1 Sub-Sectipn. His section was on duty from 6 p.m.,on November 20. There had been quite a’bit of liquor consumed'in the batterv that day. He had seen cpnsum--ed” about 6| dozen quart bottles of beer. He was on mess parade at 5 p.m. The parade was very ragged. There was little attempt at order in the mess-room. His section fell in at 5.45. The men were high in spirit. The section proceeded to the war shelter, and two of the accused, Harnett and Tau, were posted ’on look-out duty. The guns were prepared for action, and then the others went into the war shelter. Mr. Hursthouse arrived at 6.45 p.m. He told them that Bombardier Ohlson was to be relieved by Bombardier Byers. “We told him that we would not go under Bombardier Byers,” said witness.

The defending officer: Why? Witness: We did not think Bombardier Byers would give us a fair deal. He was always picking on us. Mr. Hursthouse asked Bombardier Ohlson to ask us to go on duty and Bombardier Ohlson did so, but we refused. We said we would not go under Bombardier Byers. We had no confidence in Byers. Byers was not present at the time. Mr. Hursthouse went out the door, and as he did so he told us that it was foolish of us, and that we were liable to two years’ hard labour. At 6.30, said witness, Gunner Harnett was relieved by Gunner Macpherson. Gunner Tau was relieved at 7 p.m. by Gunner Benfell, all of No. 1 Section. At 7.10, Mr. Roberts arrived and talked to the men and told them they were liable to two years’ hard labour. “He asked us: ‘Will you go on duty?’ ” said accused. “We thought that meant in our turn. We told him we would not.” The defending officer: In what con-* tion were 'the men at that time? Some were all right, but some were merry and excited. When the time came to man the guns, would you have gone on duty? —Well, it is hard to say. The President; It was a sit-down strike?—Yes, sir, from when Bombardier Byers was to take over. Gunner Watson said he agreed with the evidence given by Mclntosh. Gunner Tau gave evidence that he did look-out duty on November 20 from 6 till 7 p.m. He confirmed the evidence of the other witnesses for the defence'.'" There was no - officer present when the sub-section paraded at the war shelter. To the Court, Tau said there was no wet canteen in the barracks.

“A DRINKING BOUT.” Bombardier C. R. Ohlson said.he was in charge of No. 1 sub-section when it was detailed for duty on November 20. The sub-section paraded complete. Some of the men were merry. There had been a drinking bout between the sections during the afternoon. His section had held its own. He thought there were, about 80 bottles of beer consumed in the barracks that afternoon, - The men’s mess was an absolute “charnel house” that night, most of the men being fairly drunk. After taking over at the guns, he posted two men at the guns. The men were on duty when in the war shelter. Mr. Hursthouse told him that Bombardier Byers would take over. He then told the men that Byers would take over for a short time, and the men said they had no confidence in Byers. The president: Did Byers take over from you?—Not officially. He did not report to me, and I did not hand over the keys to him. He was outside the shelter. To the prosecutor: He did not take any action regarding the drinking in camp. The orderlysergeant had called the mess to attention about three times without result. He then tried to regain order himself, with a certain amount of success.

Addressihg the Court, the defending officer said that there was unchallenged evidence that a certain amount of liquor had been consumed in the camp, and the men were fairly bright. The first thing that happened when lads of this age came under the influence was that they were inclined to throw their weight about and to become slightly cheeky. In the war shelter, the men must be ready for instant action. To sleep would be an offence. He again stressed that their refusal referred to a future act, and until the time arrived they could not be considered to have refused duty. The men carried on and the guns were manned even after they were under arrest. In his.address the prosecutor said, he would emphasise the sergeantmajor’s evidence that he personally posted look-outs at the guns as there was none there when he arrived. In reply to the judge-advocate, the accused Watson said that seven .men were originally under arrest and were locked in a cubicle about 10 by 10 by 8, for the remainder of the night. “These mere children were, in a military camp where liquor is supposed to be prohibited, able to consume quantities of liquor,” said the defending officer. “It is not a disgrace to the boys concerned,, but to the camp itself, that they are faced with quite a serious charge. To them it was .more of a frolic; they are not the ones who are largely to blame.. These lads would have gone and done their job when the tirrie came. I submit that it is not a case for confinement. I am instructed that they have already been confined nightly in a disused concrete magazine which has been condemned by the health authorities.” The finding of the Court will be promulgated after it has been before the officer commanding the district, Brigadier 0. H. Mead.

BEER SUPPLIES INQUIRY. CHRISTCHURCH, November 29. An immediate inquiry has been ordered by Brigadier O. H. Mead, officer commanding the Southern Military District, into statements made at the court-martial at Battery Point, yesterday, that 80 bottles of beer were consumed in one afternoon at the fort. A court of inquiry has already been set up, to conduct an investigation. Brigadier Mead pointed out to-day that there was no indication in the evidence prepared for the courtmartial, that liquor had been consumed at the fort, and it was only when this was revealed by cross-examination, and in defence, that the allegation became known.