BREACHES OF THE DEFENCE ACT

Otago Witness, Issue 3111, 29 October 1913, Page 6

BREACHES OF THE DEFENCE ACT

OFFENDERS BEFORE THE COURT. At the Police Court on the 20th, before Mr J. K. -tSartuolomew, S.M., vvimam Jonn Youngson was charged with failing to render personal service. —Caxitam Handle explained tfiat this defendant nad been charged some time ago with tailing to render personal service, and on that occasion he claimed exemption on the ground of physical unfitness. However, on being examined by a medical practitioner he was found to have sight good enough for him to servo. After this certificate had been received the defendant claimed exemption for conscientious reasons. In reality the defendant was before the court for the purpose of making an application to bo exempted.— Mr Bodiord, who appeared for the defendant, said that exemption was asked for on the grounds of religious scruples and under section 67 of the Act. He explained that the defendant previously had alleges! defective eyesight in order to get out of rendering personal service, but his real objection was due to his religious scruples. He did not know if the court would require any evidence on the point, but, if so, there were any number of people who would testify as to the genuineness of the defendant s claims. Mr Bartholomew said he would require to hear evidence, because ho had had a similar application made to him by a young fellow in the country, who proved to be quite a young larrikin m tnc township where he lived.—The defendant, on oath, stated that ho was a theological student at the Otago University. His objection to serve under the Defence Act was not because it was compulsory, but because he believed in the moral law, “Thou sha.lt not kill,” and no human institution so far as he was concerned could set apart that edict; or set aside the life of a fellow. He objected to doing this because he considered ho could not conscientiously, calling himself a Christian, engage in anything tnc object of which was to kill.—Captain Handle: Why did you first of all attempt to get exemption on the ground of defective eyesight.—Defendant: It has not yet been proved that my eyesight is not defective.—-Captain Sandle: At the present state of affairs in this world do you think that the lino you propose to adopt will prevent war? —Defendant: So far as 1 am concerned I am going to hold to my own opinion on this question.—Mr Bartholomew ; Is it a part of the doctrine of the church to which you belong to object to this scheme? —Defendant: The church to which I belong has not definitely set forth its views on this case, and each individual is allowed to hold his' own views on it. Some members of the ministry hold the same views as I do, and there are others who hold views diametrically opposed to mine. I have hold these views for over 12 months. —John George Lockie, also a student at the Otago University, gave evidence to the effect that ho had known the defendant (Youngson) for some years. About this time hist year the defendant had spoken to him of his religious objections to serybeen in the Territorial Force, and had said that ho could not preach the Gospel of Peace and go everywhere as a soldier to practise legalised murder. —Mr Bartholomew: Do you hold similar views on this question?—Witness: No. I do not. —For the Defence Department Lieutenant D. Cooke stated that he was officer in charge of the B Company of the Coast Defence Detachment. He remembered Youngson visiting the Central Battery, and bringing with him a notice directing that he had been posted to the B Company for service. Witness instructed him to attend on the following Thursday and ho would ho provided with a uniform and rifle. He was put into the ranks at once and drilled m Its civilian clothes. Youngson did not attend drill the next Thursday; _ in fact, ho had not attended any dribs since. J'he next occasion on which witness saw him was last Tuesday or Wednesday, after the sitting of the court. Youngson had written a letter stating that he claimed exemption under section 65 of the Act of 1912, on the grounds of his religious convictions. Ho called personally on witness -after sending the letter, and asked for forms to fill in asking for exemption. A short discussion took place on the matter, and witness asked him why he had not put in his real objection to serving in the Territorials at the outset. Youngson replied, “ I want to beat you on your own ground.” He also added somethimr about a conviction ho had regarding “ Christ going to teach peace,” but the witness closed the incident, because, after what Youngson had said about bcat-

ing him (witness) on ins own ground, he did not want to have anything' further to > say to him on the matter.—ln answer to Mr Bedford, witness denied that Youngeon ever made any complaint to him about his eyesight. If he had ho would have given him a certificate to be examined.—Youngson, recalled, stated that he had informed Lieutenant Cooke that he had a certificate that his eyes were defective, and the latter referred him to Dr Newlands, who said that his eyes were all right. Lieutenant Cooke also placed several interrogation marks opposite his name. He heard nothing further, and under a sense of injustice he determined not to go back. What he meant by beating them on their own ground was that he considered the medical examination wrong, and ho had boon justified in calling the attention of the court to it. He had not previously wanted to raise the religious question as an objection, because he thought the other excuse was strong enough.—Mr Bartholomew at this stage adjourned the hearing of the application until October 31, in order that further evidence might bo called relative to it Other Territorials were dealt wdth as fol- _ lows, for failing to render personal service Thos. Geary, who had previously been fined for a breach of the Act, was fined £3, with costs (7s), and Allen Lament and Joseph M‘Mullen were each fined £2, with costs (7s) ; James Arthur Scott, Robert Beveridge. James Jephson, William A. Hartley, and Morris W. C. Clarise were each fined lbs. - with costs; Gordon Barr and Arthur Williams were each fined ss. with coats (7s). —A cadet named Joseph Edward Gallagher was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called up. conditionally upon his making up back parades.—Several cases were adjourned or struck out.