DISMISSED FROM SHIP

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 9 November 1933, Page 7

DISMISSED FROM SHIP

NAVAL OFFICER REPRIMANDED SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL GUILTY ONI ON® CHARGE. FOUR! OTHERS NOT PROVEN. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Nov. 8, Tiro naval court-martial wa.s continued to-day when Mr Julius Hogben addressed the court oil behalf of the prisoner, Temporary Engineer Commander Charles Mairchant of H'.M.S. Philomel. Commenting on the evidence which suggested the forging; of a time-sheet, counsel said he could only characterise it as a conspiracy intended to prejudice the accused. One witness had. said a] signature obviously was forged, but had refused to select the time-sheet to which he referred. Another witness also was unable to point to any forged time-sheet. The prisoner had made no secret of having employed a man named Ward at his home one afternoon: and had said frankly that the man had been paid out of Navy funds. The manly, generous, honest and usual thin" to have done would fee to go to March ant. and say: “You employed aj man at your home and the Navy paid for it.” If, under the circumstances of the present case the Navy did not provide a suitable reprimand, it was time the practice of the Navy was altered. Marchant had relied on his clerk and there had been no guilty intent. fl'e-galrdiing the charge of neglect of duty, counsel said he had failed to find anything in the King’s regulations or elswhere that imposed on the prisoner anjy such, duty as was set out in tjip change. On general law coupsel submitted that none of the five could be sustained. Accused’s only fault, if any, was that he had. failed to render himself an account for seven shillings and fivepenco aind to obtain Iris own approval in writing. He had done merely whhft was authorised and if there had been any breach it was a very technical one.

The prisoner was found guilty on one of the five charges preferred against him and was sentenced to be dismissed from his ship and reprimanded.

After defending counsel’s address Commander Berth an addressed the court. He said the first charge had been admitted. The prisoner had signed the wages sheet for work done at the dockyard when he knew the man concerned liad worked- for him. Commander Berthpn traversed the evidence on the other charges. He contended the accused’s action when inquiries began were those of a guilty man.

After the prosecutor’s address the court was cleared. When it reopened tlie accused’s sword, with the point towards him, indicated he had not been acquitted on all charges. He stood up while the deputy-judge announced that the court had found the first charge proved and the others not proved. Then testimonials to the accused’s ability. zeal and trustiness were handed in and read. His counsel said there was no question that his character was of the highest, his ability outstanding and his zeal unabated. In ordinary circles his offence would be regarded as technical, requiring only a reprimand. The court theii pronounced sentence.