OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10535, 9 August 1912, Page 2

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT,

i An important judgment was delivered in the Magistrate's Court this morning by Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., in the case of the Police v. Charles Arnold Campion, who was charged with a breach of Section 50 of the Defence Act, in refusing to take the oarth of allegiance. At the original hearing Mr Cassidy, who appeared for Campion, raised tlio point that tlie oath tendered and set out In the regulations was illegal, as it was substantially different from that set out in the Act. "The oath of allegiance." said the Magistrate, is set out in Section 11 of the Act. The oath tendered to the defendant is prescribed bv the regulations, and differs materially from the oath set out in Section 11. The regulations are made under Section 4 of the Act. I can find no authority authorising the proscribing of an oath by the regulations, nor can I find any authority for punishing a man who refuses to take the oath prescribed by the regulations. The oath of allegiance mentioned in Section 50 is the oath set forth in Section 11. As the Act is a penal one it must be construed strictly, as tho oath tendered to tho defendant is not the oath refeired to in Section 50, the defendant cannot be convicted. The information is dismissed." Similar charges against Charles Herbert Gardiner and Llewellyn Mooro were adjourned for two weeks, to give defendants an opportunity of taking the oath m prescribed by the Act.