MANPOWER DIRECTION

Hutt News, Volume 18, Issue 3, 21 June 1944, Page 3

MANPOWER DIRECTION

•# ; . CASK A<JAIXST .JOHN lIO<;A.V ins>!issi:n "T]i<• r<• has been nil sorts of iul'er- '>) f'>■ ;: ]) i i l.llii tall, by <11 • !'i'!) (1 ail t. ■ hat lie dots lni! iii I rjul t n comply .v iI h this (i i !*(■<• i i<>ll order, hul. 'an \ i(h !.('<• ha:; iH'i !i p !:: t I b'-lore I Ills : na! j,. i ; -. in.l aci ually woi'l;j ii,> al. ',1c i>. .'(<■; i i.iill:•." said 'All' ilarley, S. Ai.. in (In- ,\i: i: ■;• l nil e's Court last in <! ismissing a charge against John Hogan, editor or "Democracy" ol' failing lo comply ". 'i h a "•. ' n pou el- direction order .o report ,'o the Wellington woollen mills 01, March i'.s. : : .All - . W. H. Cunningham appeared lor tin 1 Na.i 1 Service Depart nient. Defendant, who r.leaded not. guilty, was r<"l'-resi-;i!<'d bv Mr, W. 1\ Sfiorland ;ui(L A;t Rothwell. •" Defendant had been directocK. by I lie manpower officer, at Lower Hu-tt, lo report to the woollen milhi as from .March i's, IP 11. .said Air. Gunningham. llis appeal on tile ground of public interest. had boon dismissed on April 17. Oil April 21, defendant had been reminded of the direc lion by ihe manpower officer, but ho had failed to take up the job. I-fogan owned a newspaper, "Democracy," in which lie had published his: intention in April not to submit to the direction, and -on .Alay 10, i n an article headed "Why Do as You Are T01d,",, he - exhorted disobeyance of the manpower directions if persons did not like them. ''A good deal of publicity was S-vcn to the appeal by defendant, .v d in fairness to the department and to him 1 would like to give soa.e of the history of (he case," said .Mr. Cunningham. 'J'he .Magistrate: 1 am only coil-cc-r; ed villi evidence whether defendant ! ailed to comply with the ' <-■') uol; propose to' listen to any political aspect, nor will I allow this Court to be used as a kind of appeal court, from the decisions of Hie appeal board. -Mr. Cunningham said he was glad oi the ruling as lie preferred to deal with the matter as set out i n ; the information. -Noel Spencer "Woods, a head office official of the National Service DeIHUl.ment, produced a copy of defendant's enrolment on July l!)!;?. ka knew of no reason why lie should, act have complied with t.lu; direction o:'uei. Cordon lirennau, former manpower officer at Lower lluil, gave evidence ol I lie direction of defendant to the wool leu mi Us, the disallowing of his appeal, andthe reminder given him on April I'-l of the direction. Defendant had advised that he did not intend to comply with the direction order. For the defendant Mr Shorland asked for the dismissal of the charge on the grounds . that the direction order had been made under defunct legislation, that the usme Wellington woollen mills did not specify any par ticular employer, and that no evidence had been producd to show affirmatively (hat defendant was not actually at the Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company Ltd. The prosecution involved the criminal jurisdiction of the Court and it was essential for the prosecution to prove the charge conclusively. On (he (irst ground, counsel stated that the direction to defendant' was dated March :!!. 1.0-1-1. and used the expression "in pursuance of .pttrt 5 of (he industrial emergency, regulations, lOIIV These regulations however had been superseded by in-' dust rial manpower regulations of February 14, 10-14. He subnjitted that the direction was ineffectual as it was by authority of an invalidated hiw. j Concerning the question of the [name of the firm. Mr. Shorlandf said the regulations were penal andgmust be strictly construed. In such formal documents as direction 'there must be no room for doubt. On the final ground lie submitted that, while there had been evidence of intent by defendant. not to comply with the order, there had been none showing iluit llogan was not actually at the Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company, Ltd. Mr. Cunningham submitted that the first two contentions could not be upheld, first as the regulations had been re-enacted in the 10 1-1 regulations, and, secondly, as there could not ha\e been any misunderstanding by defendant of the place to which he was directed, the name being that commonly used for the firm concerned. On the third contention be submitted that defendant's letter stating (hat lie did not intend to go to the job was adequate evidence that he did not actually go. It: was'impossible to apply a footnote to'the words of the regulations in some instances said Mr Ilarley. The regulations under re\iew gave a clear intention of what was meant and defendant could not possibly 11a\ e 1). 1 ell misled eiiher on the issue of the date of the regulations or the name of the linn. He therefore rejected those Iwo submissions. However, lie agreed thai there was no evidence before the Court that defendant. had not complied with the direction or (hat lie was not working at the mills. That was the most essential part of the case and was m issi ng.