IS A "C 2" MAN A TERRITORIAL?

Grey River Argus, 5 October 1918, Page 3

IS A "C 2" MAN A TERRITORIAL?

INTERESTING TEST CASE,

(i J er Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, October 4

The status of a unit Territorial came before the Supreme Co"urt to-day in the case of the Crown v. Harold Esau. The, respondent, who was a member of the Territorial Forces, was called up by ballot to be a member of the Expeditionary Forces. He was medically examined, and classed C 2 (unfit for active service) and was given definite leave. Then he failed to attend drill, and was proceeded against by the Territorial" authorities, but the Magistrate found in his favour. Against this decision the Crown appealed, the case being regarded as a test wase.

The Solicitor-General (Sir John Salmond, K.C.) appeared for the Crown, and the respondent, was represented by H. F. O'Leary. Sir J". Salmond pointed out that ir the decision of the Magistrate stood, it would mean practically the destruction of the Territorial Force in time ot" war. The only possible defence respondent could have for failing to attend drill was that he jvas prevented from so doing by his obligations in the other force, and of these he had none. The Territorial Force and Expeditionary Force were perfectly distinct units. Mr. O'Leary's main contention was that, being a member of the Expeditionary Force, the respondent could not, at the same time, be a member of the Territorial Forces, nor could he be subject to commands, from the latter force. The respondent, said counsel, was still a member of the Expeditionary Force, and from a strictly legal standpoint, his position was exactly the same as that of a man passed "nVA." and in camp. His Honour Judge Chapman said that he held that the latter man was actually executing an order by being in camp, and this seemed to him to establish a difference between the two cases. . ; Mr O'Leary, in conclusion, pointed out that the respondent might ,it any moment be called upon to obey two separate commands. Judgment was reserved.