Series of Charges Against Airman

Manawatu Times, Volume 66, Issue 142, 17 June 1941, Page 4

Series of Charges Against Airman

Appearance Before Courtmartial SEQUEL TO QUARREL IN BAR Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, June 16. An encounter between officers of the R.N.Z.A.F, in a private bar of the Bush tnn, Riccarton, on April 15, had its sequel to-day, when Flying Officer Donald Alexander Killanders, of Whenuapai, stood his trial before a court martial at Wigram. He was charged with behaving in a scandalous manner unbecoming the charactc.tr of an officer and a gentleman, in that he passed disparaging and insulting remarks about the R.N.Z.A.F. in general and about Squadron Leader Geoffrey Newland Roberts, officer commanding his squadron, in ructicular. He also faced two charges of being absent without leave, and a fourth charge of neglect to the prejudice of good order and Air Force discipline In incurring mess bills totalling £2l 1/9 and that he neglected to pay them.

Giving evidence on the first charge, Flight Lieutenant M. W. Mills described how, in company with Squadron Leader A. C. Parson, he met Gillanders in the private bar of the Bush Inn. Flight Lieutenant Mills said to the accused: “Hallo, are you still here. When I saw you on the boat the other night did you not say you were going back to your unit. Then the rumour about you being absent without leave is not true?” It was then, said witness, that Gillanders used the language complained of. Gillanders also said he had seen the local Member of Parliament, Mr. H. S. S. Kyle, about things, and also had seen the Leader of the Opposition, or was about to see him. Accused gave witness the impression that he was seeing these members of Parliament with the idea of facilitating his non return to his unit, and possibly obtaining relief from duties as Air Force officer. Flight Lieutenant Mills said h« asked Gillanders if he did not remember the order forbidding Air Force members approaching members of Parliament. Squadron Leader Parson entered the conversation at that stage, and then Gillanders used derogatory language about the Air Force and his commanding officer. Under cross-examination Flight Lieutenant Mills said his first remarks to accused were in a jocular manner, but as the conversation proceeded he felt his remarks drawing more serious comment than was intended.

Squadron Leader Parson also gave evidence TTHpb 4, Lieu* tenant Mills.

Case for the Defence. Opening the defence Flying Officer N. A. Morrison said evidence would be called to show that not all the words charged against accused were used and if they were they were used under great provocation. Flying Officer F. H. Garrick, who was in the bar at the time of the discussion, said that one or two remarks made by Squadron Leader Parson and Flight Lieutenant Mills appeared to be designed to provoke accused. They were “having him on” all the time. Witness said he could not remember the details of the conversation because he saw trouble brewing and deliberately kepi out of it. William George Haybittle, barman at the Bush Inn, said that accused asked Parson and Mills to have a drink but they refused. Flight Lieutenant Mills asked accused if he was enjoying his holiday and this led to words between them. Squadron Leader Parson said to accused that he should be ashamed of himself and at his age should have been overseas. There was & lot of this sortof thing and accused got angry and finally uoiled over. The three became rather heated. The other two were aggressive towards accused. Squadron Leader Parson later apologised to and shook hands with accused.

Witness heard no reference to accused 's unit and none of the language complained of though he was iu the bar most of the time. It appeared to him that the others goaded accused and deliberately provoked him. During the argument Parson said accused should be overseas. Accused then said: “You're all right. You are in a good safe job, the best you have ever had.'' Mills said: “What about yourself? You have never had such a good job.” Accused replied that he would be better off on the farm. When the conversation arose Parson and Mills had had some drinks—two or possibly three, but perhaps only

Accused, in evidence, said he asked Parson and Mills to have a drink but they said they Would not drink -with him. Mills asked how he was enjoying his holiday and accused told him he didn’t think it was “any of his damn business.” He told them he was supposed to have his tonsils out but was told by his doctor that he would have to have his teeth attended to first which he did. They kept firing questions at him. He told them that he thought his duty was to go back on the farm as his father was getting on in years and farm labour was scarce. Mills then said he had heard that accused was “no damn good” on the farm anyway. It was at this stage thsft he mentioned that ho was thinking of seeing Mr. Kyle, M.P., to try to have himself placed on the reserve of officers or on indefinite leave of absence without pay. Mills then returned to the question of absence without leave and told accused that he would get info trouble with Air Headquarters. “I replied that I was so fed up with everything that I didn’t give a said witness. “Squadron Leader Parson then butted in and said I had turned out to be a proper waiter. * * Accused denied he had called Squadron Leader Roberts an insulting name. He might have said he was a bit tough at times. “I would say they were out to get me worked up and aggravated,” said accused. “I had no grudge whatever against them. They just seemed to pick on me. I would not have mentioned anything about the service to them had they not started it.” Parson after the conversation apologised to accused and shook hands, saying that

he had said some things he should not have said.

“1 admit I lost my temper to a certain degree and might have said things I should not have,” accused said, though ho denied using the language set out in the charge. At the time of the conversation, which was started by Mills, he had had three drinks. To the prosecutor, accused said that Mills’ remarks were made in a manner that would have aggravated anybody. To the judge advocate, he said that though he became heated he had not said anything that he could not now recall.

After addresses by the defending counsel and the prosecutor the Court closed to consider its finding, which will be promulgated in due course.