THE DEFAULTERS' LIST.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1787, 5 November 1919, Page 10

THE DEFAULTERS' LIST.

APPEAL AGAINST INCLUSION. ON CONSCIENTIOUS GROUNDS. At a sitting of the Magistrate's Court chis morning, before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., Alister Beaton, who is at present serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Paparua Gaol, for refusing to render military service by declining to accept delivery of a military kit, appealed against his name being included on the Military Defaulters' List. He stated in his appeal that he had already received the maximum penalty, and did not consider he should be punished twice for the same offence. The appellant made his appeal under Section 17 of the Military Service Act, 1916, which states that every man who is guiltv of deserting from the Expeditionary" Force shall, in addition to his liability under the Army Act, be guilty of an indictable offence, punishable by imprisonment, with hard labour, for a term not exceeding five years, but shall not be imprisoned twice for the same offence. Major S. C. P. Nicholls, D.5.0., represented the Defence Department. Mr McCarthy (to appellant): You have to show ine that your name has been placed on the list in error. Appellant: I wish to appeal under the clause which provides that religious Objection to military service may be taken into consideration. Mr McCarthy: That is a question for the Minister of Defence. Major Nicholls: This man was before a travelling board appointed to decide conscientious objectors' cases. His application was not granted. Mr McCarthy (to appellant): You can only show that, as far as the present procedure is concerned, your name has been entered in the list in error. The religious objection appeal is a question for the Minister of Defence alone. The legislation has settled question, and I cannot alter legislation. I have to administer law as passed by Parliament. The appeal was dismissed. Appeals on similar grounds, by Edgar G. D. Blackburn, Charles J. Rudd, George L. Schultz, and John P. Sheehan, ■were struck out, as appellants failed to appear. ______________