Challiner Not Guilty Of Subversive Statement

Northern Advocate, 23 May 1944, Page 4

Challiner Not Guilty Of Subversive Statement

(P.A.) WANGANUI, This Day After a retirement of 42 minutes, the jury in the Supreme Court at Wanganui yesterday returned a verdict of not guilty in the case of Royle Richard Victor Challiner, public accountant, of Hamilton, 48, who faced four charges of publishing a subversive statement.

The trial lasted a full day and was heard by Mr Justice Smith. The charges against Challiner all related to the publication of cyclostyled copies of a circular and were brought under the Public Safety Emergency Regulations, 1940. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr N. R. Bain) conducted the prosecution and Mr J. F. Strang, of Hamilton, appeared for accused, who pleaded net guilty to all charges. The Crown stood aside two jurors and the defence challenged three. Challiner, in evidence, said he served in the last War, leaving New Zealand when 19 years of age and was wounded in 1916. In 1926 he joined the Waikato Regiment as a sergeant and was later commissioned as a secondlieutenant.

Aided Defence League

In 1930, when compulsory training was in danger of being abandoned, he took an active part in the New'’ Zealand Defence League, forming several branches in the Waikato. He was subsequently engaged in training territorials and on the outbreak of the present war volunteered for active service overseas, but was graded two. For a time service was given in New Zealand training men for overseas. Reaching the rank of captain, lie was retired after an accident and a period in hospital.

Stanton Eastgate, senior master at the high school, Hamilton, said he was overseas in the last war and on home service with the rank of lieutenantcolonel in the present. He had known Challiner for 20 years. Accused was regarded with high esteem by the people in Hamilton and was regarded as a man of high integrity. He worked hard and efficiently during the intensive training in 1940. His service was the most loyal and efficient that could have been asked of any officer. Judge’s Summing Up Summing up, His Honour said the case was one of considerable importance.

“You are charged with deciding certain issues which bear materially on the administration of the war effort,” he said. . “You are charged with seeing that accused is not convicted unless the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt a case against accused.” The jury must reject all private opinions, prejudices or any rumours it may have heard. In every case there was proof of publication of the circular to the persons named in court and this had been traced to accused.

His Honor explained the regulations and said the jury must say whether the statements in the circular were intended to' prejudice the discipline or administration of His Majesty’s forces, to use the wording of the regulations, or if they were

likely to interfere with the national effort by disrupting the morale of His Majesty’s forces. It was the duty of the jury to sas r if the circular was capable of that meaning. It was clear that the statements in the circular were not intended to interfere with the enforcement of the law of the country as it related to military service or training. The jury returned at 4.35 p.m.