MISLEADING A BOARD

NZ Truth, 5 October 1918, Page 6

MISLEADING A BOARD

A Reservist and His Rashness

Why a Fine Was Imposed.

(From "Truth's" Ohristchurch Rep.)

A charge, the first of its kind under the War Regulations, was heard at .the Rangiora Magistrate's Court one day last week, when a reservist, Ernest Frederick Ward, was charged with wilfully attempting to mislead the Military Service Board by giving false evidence at the time of his appeal. The allegation was that Ward had stated m evidence that his father was not assisting on his farm, but was keeping the Captain Cook Hotel m Dunedin, which statement accused knew to be false. Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., occupied the Bench, Sergeant Mackay prosecuted, and Lawyer H. C. D. Van Asch appeared for Ward, who pleaded giulty. ■ . ' Serg-eant Mackay said that Ward's appeal was heard m June, and he then stated that his father was keeping the Captain Cook Hotel, whereas it could be shown that the father sold out of the business the previous January, and had since then been working a farm at Waipara. Such statements would INFLUENCE THE DECISION of a Military Service Board as to whether a reservist should be exempted from military service or not. The chairman of the board, Mr. J. S. Evans, said that Ward's appeal had been adjourned from June to July,anrd then the father gave evidence, which proved accused's statements to the board to be untrue. Lawyer Van Asch, for accused, said the latter was only twenty years of age, and had hitherto borne an exemplary character. In July, 1915,-ac-cused and a brother had purchased 9. farm, but when the brother went on active service accused was left .to look after the farm. It was -his anxiety to preserve his brother's and his oyrn interest m the property that had led him to commit the present offence. Since going into camp accused had gained a lance-corporal's stripe, and the military authorities gave him an excellent record. Under the Military Service Act, 191 G, the offence charged against accused was an indictable one, and carried up to three years' imprisonment, but there was an amendment under the War Regulations which allowed the offence to be taken summarily, and counsel asked the court to take the latter course. In giving his decision, Magistrate Bailey remarked that the CASE WAS SERIOUS, and an exceptional one. m that it was the first of its kind. The young man had acquitted himself well since going on military service, and his Worship did not -wish to send him to gaol. He thought a fine would meet the case, but he would let it be known that any offender coming before him on a similar charge would be dealt with severely. Accused would be convicted and fined £10 and costs £1 5s Bd.