REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES

Otago Witness, Issue 3312, 5 September 1917, Page 41

REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES

OBLIGATIONS OF RESERVISTS. In the City Police Court on Monday, 27th tilt.. Alfred Edward Waite, an official in the service of the Department of Labour, was charged with refusing to answer questions put to him by police officers concerning his obligations under the Military Service Act in regard to his certificate of enrolment. Defendant was represented by Mr A. C. Hanlon, who entered a plea of guilty. Mr Hanlon, in defence of the attitude adopted by his client, criticised the somewhat anomalous position in which police officers were placed as far as their duty under the Act was concerned. Defendant had been approached by two policemen (Constables Macartney and Munro), who asked for his enrolment card, and who, on being asked for their authority to question him (they were in plain clothes), could not produce any. Waite was informed that he would have to take their word or be taken to the police station. However, after some wrangling, defendant agreed to go to the police station, where he made a complaint against the insolent manner in which he had been treated by the constables. Defendant, continued counsel, was quite within his rights in resenting the attitude of the constables. The system as it stood was not without faults, and something should be done in the way of giving the police officers working under the Act some tangible proof of their authority. Sub-inspector Mathieson. informed the magistrate (Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) that the constables concerned were wellknown men, while defendant, on the other hand, had been approached in his office and not in public. The Magistrate, after hearing further argument, said that had some degree of tact been exercised by the police and the defendant it would have been a great deal better for all concrned. He was of opinion that some badge or document should bo given to police officers when on such duty so as to show their authority for approaching. Sub-inspector Mathieson intimated that hewould take action in regard to this matter. Continuing, his Worship said that in the present case the defendant had been unduly sensitive and had shown a lack of tact. He would be fined 20s, with court costs (7s).