DISTRICT COURT-MARTIAL.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLII, Issue 10118, 27 October 1917, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT-MARTIAL.

tfASEQF FRANCIS JOSEPH CARROLI

Tlio Courl resit?itr."J jr'esterday afleniuoti b,.10n-Coloiwl W-. K. McUwifllil (FfisirlcntJ. Major Uoiworlh, Major SehoheJd, UHfl bee-olid-Lieut, lii.hby. Captain Ualihviu prosecuted, and Air ■>• M. (Jnglev appeared for accused. MIR EVIDENCE, f 'unstable MaS-buid,- of Ilongoten. con Liuucd hi, evictee, iftJtl Said he could Dot ronv tnl'cr when Ire Mitt ln'aftcn Joseph Carroll last, bui lie had no! ciO/iO so hnvv rliu issue of the v.arranl fur blrf Hires,.' When witness- received tin- warrant In' "l? I ''" jji(« usual ciKi'.iiric: and satisfied hhnselttnat accused v.ii.- not in the district". PARTICULARM OF THE ARKES'f/. Constable S. ■)■ Marliin Rationed i:i Ivaitaia, iili-n.it 200 miles nonh of AucklauM uuj ,•;. .-•' to ill.- Awanui wholes* nlatiou, -rakd ii" iiad !n-'ii Rationed there since j„ rK . Inst, Ho l»ili-« the. accused. Ho first saw him at Av.antii on October P, aWtboul noun. Accused «n- ha\ iii' r lii-i dinner at ilir Awnnlti Hotel, and -.mum--, also tailed there, for Ittncli When accn ed left the room witness followed hint and asked li.'« name. He gave the name of Kranli Ilalpin. Witness asked accused if he wen? enrolled •aider the Military .Service A< i. and he icplied "\.-." Witness ;.--ked liim to proilucc his registration certilicale. and he n-plit-d that lie did not have it with liim, and that it hud gotie ahead in hi* luggage. Witness said to accused that he did not romoinher svpfng tiie name Ilaluin on the rt'S 1 -"- tration roll, and accused admitted he had been regi leied under another name, bui would in»i. say wha! that ii.line was. Ae-cus'-tl was then put under arrest, and whilst waiting to hand hiin over to the military accused gave his name as franeis Joseph Canoil, said ho had been called under the

familv shirkers section of the Military Service Act. and that lie had cleared out to dodge it. "iving a a reason that ho thought their- were a lot of others who should have been called up before him. Accused said he- had ""Hie irot/i Mr Mill's station, the most noftlicrlv in Nee. Zealand, and had been working there about three months. fJo had been in Auckland and went to Wl'::ii"vrei. and passed north through Kaitaia in June last. When accused disclosed lus identity, witness handed him over to Ucu! Niel-on, odicer in charge of tin Awivmii wireless station. APPEAL HOARD REPRESENTATIVE. Captain C. R. 0. Walker, military rcpre tentative on the First Wellington Military Service Hoard, stated thai he remembered the appeal of franc's Joseph Carroll, heard in I'idiin i ■!■• it on January 15. 1917. The I Hoard id rni.-id the appeal, and announced the decision in open Court. He eouUL rot say if Carroll eras present- in Court at the J moment when the decision was given, but I notice, to parade was served to accused iiftei the decision was given. The notice was served h\ wilvlcss's clerk. Mr Oiigh.-y said that the evidence a- tc service of the notici was not definite. Cap lain Walker was merely speaking of the custom that was adopted in such cases, Mr Ongley: Can you tell us if the announcement of the decision V,,-.. made in Court after the determination was signed': Willie '•:: 1 could not ay if it. was signed }>i-i\n'c or after the announcement. The custom was to sign it after the decision had been announced. Colonel McDonald said it did not i'cilow i thai, the determination in the case n;--signed befo e deeision was announced. Mr Ong'cy said the proper procedure - athai the determination must b< signed before de elan '-'-re annoum/cd. V- -tin - [ :-:.! t tan I- it \aso\ : > ■: - '.e by the first Military Hoard. It- was (lie invariable inle to sign Ihc d"f; uiinai.i-.ai after the dcci.-.ion was announced. ( .iptain Walker produced a copy of thi order t i ats.ust d to parade for service. air Ongley: Did you ;Crve the noiic ■'.' Win.".--.: Not with my own hand.-, figried ii, hut my clerk sewed it-. Mr Ongley : On the day yon signed tin oilier, v.ere yen aware that Carroll v.a.not it. meniber of the expeditionary fe-rce. and l!i:.i lie would nut he until the follow ing day. Witness coiilendul that that was a legal qU'--l.ioii. Mr Ongiey: ! don't think Uare b ant on' slion aK.-ut it. In reply let a further question, witness ■rid ho -.add not swear that his clerk had - rvr-d tho notice on t "anoH. This concluded the evidence, In reply to Colonel McDonald, Can 'II said he did not wii'u to giv evidence nor did ho ''mend to call anv witnes.-a . CaCNSEL'S AUDUESS. In addressing the Court, Mr Ongley Ira versed (he cariou.-. |ioints in the ce e, ami said that- the fact thai the prorccution had not actually proved the delivery of cue notice upon tKCUsed >iu-'' the hearing o< the appeal, they could not po-siWy lead him guiil-v. Counsel contended, in th.e '::-• an.', in the second place that not being a soldier he could not be a. deserter, lie also emphasised the point thai Cairo!! objected to become a soldier on coi'scicnliotir grounds. Under the citcumstanees he did noi consider accused Tiould be tried by a military court. as -ucii a tribunal was set up to try soldiers for olTcnces, but not fev the trial of ;i civilian for refusing to become a soldier. lie quoted the various Act- dealing with the case, and put forth the contention that nude,- the Army Act in fugland such cases were der.lt with by a civil court, and that lesser ofli'-e!.-' in New Zealand were exercising pcweis which were denied even higher officers in fugland, he coidcnded was subversive of db.ciplino. Th.e rliahmin pointed out that the higher court (a genenti court-martial) was ccnstj: j Luted the same as a district court-martial, I biri it, could give a bigger -cut', u..\ That was the only difference. Counsel then criticised the constitmmti of the Court, and romavked on the number oi ollicer.-i who were sittintf on the r-\:-v to try one man. lie thought some of the officers '■add be employed elsewhere. Colonel McDonald said that some ol the officers were there for experience, but the nork of tho Courl v,a,- only an addition to i he dm ■- of iiie ollicevsr. Mr Ongley Lout.eride.l that a man could not hj" expected to sit in Court all day and do his other work at night as well. U<\ could not be expected to do his work properly, and it did net make for efficiency in tho'Dep-art-ment. At a time like-tins, when the organisation and administration oi the Defence Forces required the attention of even- office* of the Department, this t'tal mu-.i. bo accounted an unnecessary wa.-ie of time. When a man has made such a btatemenl as appears attached to Uie charge - !i'-et. there should be no necessity lor sucli a trial a.-, this. According to the statement of the Minister for Defence, there were between 4(W r J and -eOCC such men as this in New Zealand. If every case was {joins io take up as much time, then he thought that unlets "the Coma of the Bar made some protest, flu- public and the country < would protest. Thete was ample provision in Io<• . ivil '■'-.'- for d.-aling with th'sse caacs (Military Service Act. 1915). The whole -1000 could be dealt, with by the civil court without the ftddttion~of one man to the present staff, and ro save"the valuable time of the oiticcrs. who-e services elsewhere nr.i i be urgently needed.