MAN-POWER CASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25563, 16 June 1944, Page 4

MAN-POWER CASE

CHARGE AGAINST‘JOHN HOGAN DISMISSED ESSENTIAL EVIDENCE LACKING (P.A.) WELLINGTON, June 15. “ There have been all sorts of inferences and loud talk by the defendant that he does not intend to comply with this direction order, but no evidence has been placed before this court that he is not actually working at the woollen mills,” said Mr W. C. Harley, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at Lower Hutt yesterday, dismissing a charge against John Hogan, editor of Democracy, of having tailed to comply with a man-power direction order to report to the Wellington Woollen Mills on March 28. Hogan had been directed by the man-power officer at Lower Hutt to report to the woollen mills as from March 28. Mr W. H. Cunningham, who appeared for the National Service Department, said that Hogan’s appeal on the grounds of public interest had been dismissed on April 17. On April 24 Hogan had been reminded by the manpower officer of the direction, but had failed to take up the job. A witness from the National Service Department produced Hogan's enrolment on July 3, 1942, and said he knew of no reason why he should not have complied with the direction order.

Gordon Brennan, who was formerly man-power officer at Lower Hutt, gave evidence of the direction of Hogan to the woollen mills, and said he had reminded Hogan of the direction after the appeal was dismissed. Mr W. P. Shorland, who appeared for Hogan, asked for dismissal of the charge on the grounds that the direction order had been made under defunct legislation, that the name of the Wellington Woollen Mills did not specify any particular employer, and that no evidence had been produced to show that the defendant was not actually at the Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company, Ltd. On the first ground, he said, the direction to the defendant was dated March 24. 1944, and used the expression “in pursuance of part V of the Industrial Emergency Regulations, 1942,” which regulation had been superseded by the Industrial Man-power Regulations of February 14. 1944. On the second ground, he said, there must be no room for doubt in such formal documents as directions. , ... .. Mr Cunningham submitted that the 1942 regulations had been re-enacted in the 1944 regulations, that there had not been any misunderstanding regarding where Hogan was directed, and that the defendant had stated he did not intend to go where he was directed. Mr Harley said that the defendant could not have been misled either on the issue date of the regulations or the name of the firm, and he therefore rejected those two submissions. He agreed that there was no evidence before the court that the defendant had not complied with the direction or that he was not working at the mills. That was the most essential part of the case, and it was missing.