A NEW ZEALANDER'S UNIFORM.

Otago Witness, Issue 3332, 23 January 1918, Page 24

A NEW ZEALANDER'S UNIFORM.

(Feom Our Own Correspondent.) The case in which Dr Edmund Yeates (50), is charged with wearing military Uniterm without lawful authority came up again at Bow street, London. The charge was of wearing, without authority, the uniform of a captain in the New Zealand amilitarv forces. Dr Yeates was arrested at his club some time ago, and charged at Bow Street. After the preliminary hearing bail was allowed, and the case has since been twice before the courts. Counsel for Dr Yeates (Mr J. H. Q. Sproule) stated that he had no desire to avoid the hearing; in fact, he had all along been anxious that the charge should be against him. He suggested that his client might be permitted to make a qualified plea* Ho had been wearing the uniform quite legitimately for three years or more, and • olaimed —however mistaken his claim might be —that so far from there being any justification for the proceedings takers Bgainst him, ho had ground of action against the Defence Department of New Zealand. He, therefore, asked to make a qualified plea of not. guilty, so that his position might not be prejudiced in any claim ho might see tit to prefer subsequently. The Magistrate (Mr Graham Campbell) having declined to accept a qualified plea, counsel said his client would plead not guilty, but with tho qualification that he reserved all his .-rights and privileges as an officer of the New Zealand Forces, which lie was endeavouring to onforco in another 6ourt. Mr Sproule said that it. might so turn out that the court would practically try the question whether tho defendant was still a military officer or not. But that was a question which had to corno beforo judge and jury. In the meantime his client would not make any plea which woidd have tho effect of admitting that ho was a civilian The Magistrate: By a plea of not guilty he does not admit anything. Mr Sproule said ho might argue that tho defendant, as a military officer, was not Bubjeot 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, oh October 29, in consequence of a communication from the War Office, ho called ypon defendant at his club and informed him that ho had received information from the War Office that he was not enttlcd to wear military uniform, and asked him to aocompany witness to Bow street, which bo did. In reply to the charge tho defendant »aid: "With the full knowledge of tho Prime Minister of Now Zealo.nd, the Min-

ister of Defence of New Zealand, and the General Officer Commanding at Wellington, New Zealand, and the General Officer Commanding in London, I have been weamg uniform since September 19, 1914, and all of them I have asked verbally and officially to pronralgato a charge against me in a proper manner. I deny the charge." Witness produced a copy of the New Zealand Government Gazette, dated the following appeared: "The notice published in the New Zealand Gazette, dated January 28, 1915, relative to the appointment of Edward Yeates, F.8..C.5.L, as captain is cancelled at his own-request."

In reply to defendant's counsel, witness said ho had not had transmitted to him a copy of a i paper of a couple of days later date than tho Government Gazette, in which the defendant denied that he had resigned, and challenged the Government to produce any 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. rcpresenting v 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. in the United Kingdom, said he 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 recognise him as an officer of the New Zealand Forces, for the reason that he was bound by the notice in the_ New Zealand Government Gazette that the 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 the 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 impostu-e on the defendant's part in weaving uniform. It simply arose out of -a dispute ho had with the New Zealand Defence Department, and the defendant took tho view that, if he discontinued wearing unform, he would be'prejudicing his claim for redress. Defendant had repeatedlv denied that he had ever resigned his commission or requested tho cancellation of his appointment. Mr Sproule: The defence is that the defendant has a claim of right, having neither resigned nor applied for the cancellation of his commission, and is therefore entitled to wear uniform, notwitlxstanding tho Gazette notification, which is inaccurate. There were only two ways in which he would ceaso to be a soldier—either by removal or resignation, —and neither course was followed. Tin's matter is_ going to be tho subject of an action against tho New Zealand Government, and this prosecution has been engineered for the purpose of prejudicing that action. Dr Yeates, giving evidence on his own behalf, said he had served in tho South African war. He wont to Samoa ns an officer in the medical service of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force. On his return he was appointed a member of the medical staff of the- Trentham training camp in New Zealand. While there he exposed certain mistakes and abuses, which subsequently formed the subject of inquiry by a Earliamentary commission, which justified is exposure. As a result he incurred tho displeasure of tho officers above him, who' wero responsible for these abuses, and ho was informed that his servicei at the camp had been dispensed with. He applied for and was promised a court of inquiry, but It was never held. After delay, he wrote to the Defence Department offering to resign his commission, with a view to coming to England and joining the R.A.M.0., pro-

vided certain conditions as to arrears of payments ajid other matters were complied with, but these conditions Avere ignored, and a Gazette notification was published that his appointment had been cancelled "at his own request." Ho thereupon wrote to the Defence Department, denying that he had either resigned or had requested the cancellation of his appointment, and he communicated a statement to that effect to the press, which was published. With the exception of the correspondence in which he had suggested that he \vould resign under certain stipulated conditions, he had never intimated any intention of resigning, nor had he requested the cancellation of his appointment. Tho Magistrate: My present view is that I am bound by the Gazette notice. The case 'was further adjourned for a week.

[By cable it has been reported that a fino was imposed on Dr Yeatos.]