ARMY CANTEENS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15575, 4 April 1914, Page 9

ARMY CANTEENS.

THE' CONTRACT SCANDALS:

CHARGE AGAINST OFFICERS.

COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.

By Telegraph—Pr«.<s Association— Copyright.

London, April 3. The case against a number of officers and civilians in connection with the army canteen inquiry was resumed yesterday.

The charge is one of conspiracy under the Corrupt Practices Act, which provides for a maximum fine of '£500 or two years' imprisonment, or both; or if dealt with summarily in the police court, a fine of £50 or four months' imprisonment, or both.

Counsel for the defence argued that no evidence of special services to contractors had been tendered, Lipton, Ltd., had paid the quartermasters for voluntary services rendered, apart from their military duties. All the defendants were committed for trial. FORM OF TEE SUMMONSES. The defendants in this case are as follows ;— MILITARY. Hon. Lieutenant and Quartermaster William James Armstrong, Norfolg Regiment; Sergeant-Ma jor Georgo Petchy Bennett, West Hiding Regiment; Hon. Lieutenant and Quartermaster James Burns. Bth Hussars; Hon. Lieutenant and Quartermaster Thomas Henry Johnson, Royal Lancaster Regiment; Hon. Lieutenant and Quartermaster William Kelly, Leinstar Regiment; Staff-Sergeant Thomas Millward, Army Service Corps; Hon. Captain and Quartermaster George Edward Mitchell, Devon Regiment; Hon. Captain and Quartermaster Charles Quarrell, Suffolk Regiment. CIVILIAN. John Cansfield, general manager and a director of Lipton, Limited; Archibald Minto, a director,, and formerly head 4 ! military department of Lipton, Linntid; James C. Craig, was general manager of the military department of Lipton, Limited, in Ireland; Daniel Lynch, manager .of the canteen department of Lipton, Limited, for Ireland; Andrew Laing, military manager of the Aldershot department of Lipton, Limited, been in the service of the firm for about ten years; Frederick William Owen, an inspector in connection with the Salisbury branch of the military department of Lipton, Limited; Edward Arthur Pegley, formerly an inspector of the military department of Lipton, Limited, in the Colchester district, but left the firm about two years ago;' Alfred Swain, indoor shorthand clerk in military department of Lipton, Limited. The form of the summonses is the same in the cases of all the defendants. They are charged:—For that they did, on or about February 1, 1903, and en divers other subsequent days, unlawfully conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together and with other persons—being officers, warrant offices, non-commis-sioned officers, and others serving in His Majesty's Army or being employed by Lipton, Limited— money should be corruptly given to and accepted by divert officers, warrant officers, non-commis' sioned officers, and others serving in thi army as inducements to the said officer! to do divers acts in violation of theii official duties; and that gifts and con siderations should be corruptly offered and given to, and accepted by, diver; army officers as inducements anc rewards for showing favour to Lipton Limited, in relation to the affairs anc business of the Crown.