MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Issue 12889, 22 July 1913, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Messrs J. T. Muir and J. Ste. venson, J.P.'s.)

INSOBRIETY,

A first-offending inebriate was convicted and discharged, and ordered to pay' 4j> cab hii'e. Another man who was similarly charged, but failed to appear, was mulcted m the amount of his bail, 10s. A PIECE OF VENISON. In conjunction with the Acclimatisation Society, for whom 'Mr Izard appeared, the police prosecuted Charles Quarterman oh a charge of being in possession of imported game, to wit, fallow deer, during the close season. Mr Cohen appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given by Constable Willetts to the effect that he saw the defendant in the street with a parcel under his arm, and upon examining it, -he found that it contained venison. A fine of £1 was imposed. KEEPING UNREGISTERED DOGS. On the information of Michael Hogan, who was rem'esented by "Mr Treadwell. G. Gray, J.C. Findlay, E. Walsh, O. Murray, L. Murray and D. Bennie were proceeded against for keeping unregistered and wer o each fined 10s. EXPOSING INFECTED SHEEP. John Butcher and James B .McNeil, forexposing lice-infected sheep for sale wefe each fined 10s. James Wilson and F. Perseval, for a similar offence, were also each fined 10s. D. Munro, inspector, was the informer. EMPLOYER FINED. KEPT TERRITORIAL FROM DUTY. An interesting sequel to the prosecation of a Territorial named Perrett, who was fined for failing to attend oamp, was heard at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, when Arthur G. Winstone, chemist, was charged with preventing Perrett from attending the- j drill. ' ,

Senior Sergt. Bourke prosecuted, and Mr A. Hogg appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. The action was taken under section 57 Oi the Defence Act Amendment Act 1912, which provides for <a- penalty of £20 in the case of a breach.

The case for the prosecution was that Perrett was in the employ of Mr Winstone at tho time of the training camp at Oi'ingi.

Captain Hume, adjutant of" the 7th Regiment, gave evidence that Private Perrett was a duly registered Territorial serving in the 7th Regiment, and he failed to attend the annual training camp held in April last or th© casual camp held in May. 5 Prior to tho casual camp Porretfc had received notice to attend, but had failed to d oso. He was duly prosecuted in tho Magistrate's Court, and fined. Tn his statement in court, Perrett stated that he had^ been prevented from attending camp by his employer, Mr Winstons, the present defendant. Continuing, the witness said that leave was -granted 1 at the request of Perrett and his employer, conditionally on his attending the casual camp in May Perrett <Ld not attend tha oasua! camp. Witness was present in court when Mr Winstone gave evidence in tho. case against Perrett. To the ber>t of the (witness' knowledge, Mr. Winston© acknowledged that he prevented Perrett from going to oamp. He told him he could nob go. Mr Winstone said that Perrett was very anxious to attend the camp and that hi s bag had! boon packed ready for ii.

To Mr Hogg: The casual camp was an annual camp. His ground for calling it an annual camp were made clear in tht> regulations, which necessitated a man putting in seven days in a training camp annually. The requirements of regulation 24y had been complied wiia before the holding of the Ori'ngi camp in April. As far as the casual camp was concerned, the regulations prov.'ding for posters being* circulated wero not complied with, but everyone who did not attend the first camp were notified that they wero requiredto attend the casual' camp. ' . . ' Edward <?. H. Perrett, a- registered' Territorial, deposed that he received notice to attend the casual training camp in May. He did not attend. The reason was that his employer told him that he would not bze able to go His emplo ho would not be able to go. His employer could not get relieving assistance. Witness had his bag packed neady to go.

To Mr Hcgg: When Mr Winstone told him that he could not go' to camp, witness appealed to Major McNaught, his commanding officer, and asked him to decide for him what to do. He was between two evils.

lo his Worship: Major MoNaught afterwards informed him that Mr Winstonp would bear the consequences. To Mr Hogg: Major McNaught advised him not to fall out with his bread and butter.

To his Worship: He appealed to Major McNaught in his military capacity. Us* followed that officer's advice, and did not go to camp. His Worship: This is the sort of thing people get for being indulgent in their duties.

To Mr Hn<rrr : Witness toM Major McNaught that ho would «bido by his advice. If Major McNaught had' told him to go to camp, witness would havo don© so.

To his Worship: He understood from Mr Winstone that he refused to iet him off. 'He would not like to swear that Mr Winstone said that ho would bear the brunt of it. If he said so, in the last case, he would be prepared to ritand by it. Mr Winstone did bear tho brunt of it, and paid the fine imposed on the witness.

Colonel R. Hughes, commanding tho / th Regimentj gave evidence that a day or so .before the casual camp Mr Winstone rang him vp f on the telephone and said he wanted.to know if it was possible if leave could bo obtained for Perrcbt to absent himself from the camp. Witness told him that he had no power to give leave, and suggested that he should get relief. Mr Winstone said that he could, but that it would cost him £9 "to £10, and a competent assistant was not easily obtained. Witness told Mr Winstone that if he keDt Per-

rott from attending the camp he would bo liable to a fine of £5. Mr Winstone replied thnt it would probably pay him better: Witness took that to mean that it would pay Mr Winstone not to allow Eerrett to attend the camp. Witnes thon concluded by telling Mr Winstone that ho would have to bear the consequences.

To Mr Hogg: Witness took it that the casual camp was part and parcel of tho first trainin gcamp, and that it was instituted for the convenience of employers and Territorials.

To his Worship: He knew that there were clauses provided in the regulations giving provisions in the case of hardship. If these provisions were in force this year witness would have opposed granting leave to Pewett, owing to the attitude Mr Winstone took up last year in connection ivith letting Perretfc attend camp.

Arthur G. Winstone, chemist, the defondant, gave evidence that Ins reasons for not giving his assistant leave of absenco to attend the camp was that he could not obtain a relieving assistant. Ho tried hard, inquiring from Wellington to New Plymouth, and all along tho coaat. It was essential in a chemist's business that there should be two. One xrns required at the dispensing tftbla,' and it was rery important that oh¥ siiould b» • behind th« oount«r. There

were urgent prescriptions to be dispensed and important surgical appliances to be supplied, which required a trained man. At the time of the camp he was a man short. Witness had no objection to his assistant fulfilling his duty, and he was not an antagonist to military training. He assisted Perrett considerably by being punctual in relieving him in the evenings and. letting him off to attend the parades. Mr." Hogg, in a lengthy defence, sought to show that the Sergeant had not proved his case. He held that Perrett -was ia free agent, and could have done as he liked. His Worship replied that it was clear that Mr Winstone had refused to give him the necessary permission to get off. But he did not prevent him from going, persisted Mr Hogg. The charge should have read "attempted to prevent." His Worship: You can amend the information if you like. The Sergeant objected, stating that the course of action taken by the defendant prevented Perrett from complying with the law. His Worship concurred with this view, stating that from the character given him by his officers, Perrett was anxious to do his duty. His employer adopted an action which Perett took seriously, and one. if Perrett opposed, which would* h^jye caused friction between him and his employer. Mr Hogg questioned whether the casual camp was a part of th© training camp, but his Worshio made it clear that it was a continuation of the main camp, and was held for the express purpose of conyeniencmg -employees and

Tsrntorials. Mr Hogo; pursued his defence and attacked the validity of the regulation under which the charge was brought. He sought to show that there was an inconsistency between the Act I and the regulations in regard to tho duration of the camp. During thp argument the Sergeant remarked that Mr. Hogg was harking up the wrong tree. Captain Hume explained that tho law points Mr Hogg spoke of referred to tho general training section, arid not to the 1 Territorials. I His Worship, summing up, eaid that jhe must hold that a breach of the Act | iiad been committeed. and defendant was liable to a fino. There was no doubt

j the Territorial movement entailed a certain amount of hardship on employers. At the same time, the requirements of the country were paramount. In this caso. as in other cases, employers may apply for exemption from a Magistrate if there was any undue hardship. What undue hardship means is not clearly denned. He did not think "undue" was a particularly happy adjective. He ddd not see its aptness, though there was no doubt that it meant exceptional hardship. It was at .the discretion of the Magistrate to say who would be exempt. It was doubtful whether an exemption would' bo givei ir. Mr Winhicne's case. Each case must stand on its merits, on its own facts. The evidence showed that the defendant *tried

t" get a man to relieve Perrett. It was not-tiiat defendant showed any spirit of antagonism^ but simply that he fek the uinch of the requirements of the Act. Everyone must feel a certain amount <,{

inconvenience in the operation of tho Act, but one must look at it from a broad standpoint, .and see that the regulations were carried out. Weighing the of tho case, justice would be met by the imrw6ition of a fino of £1 and costs.