Constable Who Left Police Force Fined £10

Northern Advocate, 22 December 1945, Page 4

Constable Who Left Police Force Fined £lO

; (Special) HAMILTON, This Day. j A conviction was entered and a fine ■ of £lO was imposed upon David | Arthur Stuart, a former constable ’ now employed as a share-milker at Rotorua (Mr Cooney), in a reserved ' judgment given by Mr S. L. Paterson, j S.M., in Hamilton yesterday. The charge preferred against Stuart in the Police Court at Rotorua on December 11 was that he deserted from the Police Force and refused to obey | the lav/ful command of a superior officer. Mr. Paterson said the evidence revealed that defendant joined the force in 1936, and was then subject to the Police Force Act, 1913, which stated that a constable could not leave the force without the permission of the Minister in charge, or without giving one month's notice in writing to the Minister. WANTED TO RESIGN In June, 1943, the Police Force Emergency Regulations were gazetted, and these provided that a constable could only leave the force with the Minister’s permission. On October 11 Constable Stuart lodged an application to resign as from November 22. His reason was that he could not adequately support his family of four children, one of whom was an invalid, on his police salary. He y/ished to take up farming. The commissioner’s reply stated that j Stuart’s resignation could not be accepted at present, due to the staff shortage. It added that Stuart had been treated very liberally as the department had recently spent £220 on his behalf in transferring him, at his own request from Hokitika to Rotorua. j Stuart then lodged another application to resign on November 22. He was ill and produced a medical certificate showing that he was unfit for work until November 30. On November 30, Stuart’s uniform was left at the Rotorua police station with a report stating that he would not return to duty. As he had received no further reply to his second application, he concluded that permission would be granted. He then commenced farming. Mr. Paterson said the defendant had' committed a breach of the Emergency Regulations in leaving his employment without the permission of the. Minister. Mr. Cooney had suggested that the regulations were ultra vires because they contravened the Statute made in 1913. This submission was not tenable, said the magistrate, as the regulations were validated. Stuart was guilty of desertion and must be convicted. WAS EARNING £457 The magistrate said he considered Stuart’s salary of £457, per annum sufficient to keep him and his family at a good standard of living. He also stated that the defendant might find cause to regret leaving a * steady job. In later years jobs might 1 be harder to find.

Mr. Paterson said the maximum penalty was a fine of £2O and the forfeiture of all wages owing to the der fendant. Defendant in this case was owed £55, but the Court could do nothing" but order its forfeiture. The defendant, if he desired, could apply to. the Governor-General to have the order altered. The fine, concluded the magistrate, should be substantial in order to be a deterrent to others.