UNFIT TERRITORIALS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXVI, Issue 17397, 7 October 1918, Page 3

UNFIT TERRITORIALS.

WHAT IS THE POSITION?

INTERESTING APPEAL CASE

(Per Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, October 4

The status of unfit territorials i came before the Supreme Court toI day in the Crown v. Harold Esau, who was a member of the Territorial forces and was called by ballot to be a member of the Expeditionary Force. He was medically examined, classed C 2 (unfit for active service) and given indefinite leave. Then he failed to attend drill, and was proceeded against by the Territorial authorities, but the Magistrate found in his favour. Again-t th:'R decision the Crown appealed, the case being regarded as a rest case. The Solicitor-General (Sir .; jhn Salinond, K.C.i appeared tor the Crown, and respondent was represented by Mr. H. F. O'Leary. Air. Salmond pointed out (hat if "the ;lecision of the Magistrate stood, it would mean the practical ileotvuction of the territorial force in time of war. The only possible defence the respondent could nave *'or failing to attend drill was that lie v,as prevented from so doing by his obligations in another force, and of ..hose he had none. The Territorial force and the Expeditionary force were perfectly distinct units.

Afr. O'Lcary's main contention wan that, being a member ol' the Expeditionary Force, respondent could not at the same time be a member of the Territorial Forces, nor could lie be subject to commands from t.tu> latter force. Respondent wa* srill » member of the Expeditionary Force, and, from a strictly lejial standpoint, ni.s position was exactly the same as (bat of a man passed lit A and in camp.

His Honour held that the latter man was actually executing an order by being in en nip. and this seemed to him to establish a difference between the two cases.

Air. O'Lcary, in conclusion, pointed out that the respondent might at any moment be called upon to obey two separate commands.

Judgment was reserved