A SERIOUS CHARGE

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9173, 13 October 1915, Page 9

A SERIOUS CHARGE

OFFENCE AGAINST WAR REGULATIONS ACT. ;

A case, which is probably the first of its kind that has come before the court, was heard by Mr' D.. G. A. Cooper, . S.M., yesterday, when • two ship’s trimmers, named- respectively William Rice aad John Joseph Dignan, were charged with committing a breach of contract to serve His Majesty in the capacity of trimmers, contrary to the War Regulations Act, 1914. - Air’ P. S. K. Maeassey, who* represented the Crown, said that power was given the Government to make regulations governing cases of this nature. Penalties were provided, for,, not to exceed twelve months’ imprisonment in cases of alien subjects, and three months in respect to others; the maximum fine that could be inflicted was £2O, The offence committed by the accused was of a very serious nature. By their act shipping had been held up. These men, who were trimmers on vessels under charter to the New Zealand Government, bad-left their respective vessels without leave, and the breaking of their contract had necessitated other men being secured to take their places, , The vessels wore delayed, which may have had very serious consequences. . - ..Evidence was given, and the ship’s articles produced by Captain G. G. Smith, shipping master, showing that defendants had signed on. as members of the crews.

Defendants admitted that they were on the articles of the ships, but stated that they had no intention of leaving their respective vessels. One of them informed the court that they had come ashore to get a drink,- and had been arrested, when their object was to return to their posts. When arrested witness told the constable the ship he came from .and the capacity in which he was occupied. The other accused stated that he was given permission to come aihor© in order that he might secure a supply of soap and matches, and after having a drink or two was arrested at TO o’clock in the morning; he had been in custody ever since. All his personal belongings were on the ship, and, he fully intended sailing in her. ' 1 ■

Mr Macassey said that defendants .had not only committed . a an offence against the regulations in their official capacity, but also one against their King and country The fact that they were arrested , for drunkenness may have been the cause of their being unable to carry out their obligations, but was no excuse.

His Worship said that he was of the opinion that the men had no intention of deserting, but drunkenness was no excuse in law, although it might be considered an , extenuating circumstance. It was wrong for the men to come off the ship, and they should have been put back again. In fact, His Worship could not understand why the accused were not put on board their vessels when there was ample time to do so before they left. Each accused was sentenced to a month in gaol.