A NEW ZEALANDER'S UNIFORM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17216, 19 January 1918, Page 11

A NEW ZEALANDER'S UNIFORM.

(Fuom Ouk Own CoimEsrbNDENT.)

LONDON, November 27.

Tho case in which Dr Edmund (50), is charged with wearing military uniform without lawful authority came up again at Bow Street yesterday. Tho charge was of wearing, without authority, the uniform of a captain in tho New Zealand military forces.

Dr Ycates was arrested at his club some time ago, and charged at Bow Street. After the preliminary hearing bail was allowed, and tho ease has since been twico before tho courts.

Counsel for Dr Yeatcs (Mr J. IL C. Sproule) stated t hat ho had no desire to avoid the ' hearing; in fact, he had all along been anxious that the charge should bo brought against him. Ho suggested that his client might be permitted to make a qualified plea.. lie had been wearing the uniform quite legitimately for threo years or more, and claimed —however mistaken his claim might he —that so far from thero being any justification for the proceedings taken against him, he had ground of action against tho Defence Department of New Zealand. He, therefore, askod to make a qualified plea of not guilty, so that his position might not be prejudiced in any claim ho might see lit to prefer subsequently.

Tho Magistrate (Mr Graham Campbell) having declined to accept a qualified plea, counsel said his client would plead not guilty, but with tho qualification that ho reserved all his rights and privileges as an officer of the New Zealand Forces, which he was endeavouring to enforce in. another court.

Mr Sproulo said that it might so turn out that the court would practically try the question whether the defendant was still a military officer or not. But that was a question which had to come before judge and jury. In tho meantime, his client would not make any plea which would have the effect of admitting that ho was a civilian

The Magistrate: By a plea of not guilty ho does not admit anything. Mr Sproule said ho might argue that the defendant, as a military officer, was not subject to the jurisdiction of this court at all. However, he had made his application, and he would let it remain at that, as he understood that >t had been arranged that there should bo a remand. A plea of not guilty was then entered. Police Sergeant James Bennett said that, on October 29, in consequence of a communication from tho War Office, he called upon defendant at his club and informed him that ho had received information from tho War Office that ho was not enttlcd to wear military uniform, and asked him to accompany witness to Bow street, which ho did. In reply to the charge tho defendant said: "With tho full knowledge of tho Primo Minister of New Zealand, tho Minister of of New Zealand, and tho General Officer Commanding at Wellington, New Zealand, and the General Officer Commanding in London, I havo been wearng uniform since September 19, 1914, and all of them I havo asked verbally and officially to promulgate a charge against mo in a proper manner. I deny the charge." Witness produced a cony of the New Zealand Government Gazette, dated July 22. 1915, in which tho following appeared: "The notice published in tho Now Zealand Gazette, dated January 28, 1915, relative to the appointment of Edward Yeatcs, F.R.C.5.1., as captain is caneelled at his own request."

In reply to defendant's counsel, witness said ho had not had transmitted to him a copy of a paper of a couple of days later date than tho Government Gazette, in which the defendant denied that he had resigned, and challenged tho Government to produce anv evidence of his resignation.

Counsel stated that, if necessary, tho secretary of the British Medical Council was willing to become surety.

On the case being resumed a week later. Major Bevis. representing General Headquarters, said that the War Office took a serious view of this class of offence.

Brigadier-general G. S. Richardson, General Officer Commanding the N.Z.E.F. iji tho United Kingdom, said ho had known the defendant since March of _ last year, and had never seen him except in uniform. Defendant invited him to arrest him to test the legality of his action in wearing uniform, but witness did not do so. Witness saw him frequently in a friendly way, but did not officially reoognise him as an officer of tho New Zealand Forces, for the reason that he was bound by the notice in tho New Zealand Government Gazette that tlk> defendant's commission had been cancelled at his own request. He was aware, that defendant had gone to Egypt as an officer in the service of tho British Red Cross, and that he wont in uniform. Witness had nothing to do with this prosecution. Ho was aware that there was no suggestion of imposturo on the defendant's part in wearing uniform. It simply arose out of a dispute ho had with the New Zealand Defence and the defendant took the view that, if ho discontinued wearing unform, ho would bo prejudicing his claim for redress. Defendant had . repe-atedW denied that ho had ever resigned his commission or requested the cancellation of his appointment.

Mr Sproulo: Tho defence is that the defendant lias a claim of right, having neither resigned nor c.pplied for tho cancellation of his commission, and is therefore entitled to wear uniform, tho Gazette notification, which is inaccurate. There were only two ways in which he would cease to be a soldier—either by removal or resignation,—and neither courso was followed. This matter is going to bo tho subject of an action against the New Zealand Government, and this prosecution has been engineered for tho purposo of prejudicing that action. Dr Yeatos, giving evidenoe on his own behalf, said he had served in the South African war. Ho went to Samoa as an officer in the medical sorvioe of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force. On his return ho was appointed a member of tho medical staff of tho 'fmntham training camp in New Zealand. While there ho exposed, certain mistakes and abuses, which subsequently formed tho subject of inquiry by a parliamentary commission, which justified his exposure. As a. result bo incurred tho displeasure of the officers above him, who wo.ro responsible for these abuses, and ho was informed that bis service at tho camip had been dispensed with. Ho applied for and was promised a court of inquiry, but it was never held. After delay, ho wrote to the Defence Department offering to resign his commission, with a view to coming to England and joining tho R.A.M.C., provided certain conditions as to arrears of payments and othor matters were complied with, but these conditions -wero ignored, and a Gazette notification was pubbshed that iiis appointment had' been cancelled "at- his own request." He thereupon wrote to the Defence. Department, denying that ho had cither resigned or had requested tho cancelation of his appointment, and ho communicated a statement to that effect to tho press, whioh was published. With tho exception of tho correspondence in which ho had suggested that ho would resign, under certain stipulate* 1 } conditions, he had never intimated any intention of resigning, nor had ho requested tho cancellation of his appointment.

The Magistrate: My present view is that I am bound by the Gazette notice.

The caso was further adjourned for a w^eek.

[By cable it has been reported that a fine was imposed on Dr Yeates.]