HOME GUARD

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 77, 27 November 1942, Page 2

HOME GUARD

OBJECTIONS TO SERVICE CASES BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE Two men were charged in the Magistrate’s Court this morning with being members of the Home Guard and failing to undergo the training required. Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M.. was on the Bench. The first defendant, Leslie George Hart, pleaded guilty. Senior Sergeant C. Petersen, prosecuting, said that the defendant was attached to the Home Guard and actually attended a parade in August. Since then he had failed to attend any parades. There was a letter from the defendant which probably explained the reason. Reading from the letter the Magistrate quoted the defendant as saying that he did not see why he should have to go to parades. He enlisted in the last war and saw action in Gallipoli and France and was wounded. He would be quite willing to join the E.P.S. but would not don a uniform.

The senior sergeant said that defendant had an opportunity of appealing against Home Guard service but apparently did not avail himself of it. The Army Department regarded the matter seriously. In reply to the Magistrate, Hart said that he had nothing to say. He complained that he had had a pretty rotten spin in the last war; also he did not think he was fit enough. He was receiving treatment from the doctor at present and was unfit for work.

The Magistrate commented that was a different story from what defendant had said in his letter. He asked defendant if he would agree to put on uniform if he was fit. Defendant replied that he would but he would not be responsible for anything that happened. The Magistrate asked the Home Guard representatative, Lieutenant A. S. Edwards, if he would be satisfied if the defendant went before a medical board.

Lieutenant Edwards: “Yes, except for his refusal. I want an example made in this particular case.” Defendant said that he was a married man with five children. He was on compensation at present for ai accident at work.

The Magistrate remarked that men must come forward to defend their country, even if it did not mean going overseas. He would take into account defendant’s position; but for that he would have imposed a very heavy penalty. Defendant was fined £2 and 10s costs, being allowed a month to pay. The second defendant, Mathew Cuthbert, also pleaded guilty. Senior-Sergeant Petersen said that the circumstances were practically identical with the previous case, except that the defendant had not definitely said that he was not prepared to do his training.

Defendant said that he had volunteered in this war and had served in the National Reserve for a while. He had three sons overseas. He had a boil on his leg which needed treatment every night, and also suffered from acute gastritis. He did not object to serving if he felt fit. Lieutenant Edwards said that defendant did not notify the Home Guard of his disability. Defendant said he understood now that he made a mistake in not notifying the authorities. Lieutenant Edwards said that if he had known the facts before the case would not have come up. The Magistrate adjourned the case for a week to allow the authorities to confirm the facts stated.