At a special Borough Court on Tuesday, April 11th, 1916, four Luton young men were charged with not having complied with the order of the Military Authorities to enrol themselves for service on April 8th. Their names were Bernard Bonner, of 20 Park Street West; Sidney Charles Bell, of 23 Ashburnham Road; Harry Edward Stanton, of 89 Wellington Street; and Montague R. Dimmock, of 92 New Town Street.

Major Orde, the Military Representative, and Sgt Handley, also of the Recruiting Office, proved that in each case the requisite notices were sent out and the defendants had not complied, as therein called upon, by reporting themselves on April 8th.

When asked by the Clerk (Mr William Austin) for an explanation of their conduct, each one pleaded that he had a conscientious objection to combatant service. Mr Austin pointed out that the present court had nothing whatever to with such objections. The Tribunals set up were the proper authorities for deciding on those questions.

As a matter of fact, it was admitted that all the absentees had been refused exemption by the Tribunals.

With regard to William Bonner, it was stated that he was willing to undertake work of national importance, while refusing to take up active service. Some correspondence, it seems, had passed between his friends and the authorities, and it was hoped to get a reply favourable to his taking up farming work.

The Clerk pointed out that the lowest fine was 40 shillings. But that there could be no satisfaction in inflicting fines in cases of this description, and the only other course was to remand the defendant for an escort. The Bench formally ordered this.

Bell, when called upon, told the Bench that he had an objection to combatant service, and a similar order was made.

The defendant Stanton, called upon by the Clerk, came before the Court with his cap on, and took exception to the allegation that he was "a deserter".

Asked by Mr Austin to remove his cap, he was understood to say that he recognised no law which compelled him to do this. When asked by Chairman Mr H. Arnold if "common politeness" would not induce him to do so, he replied that out of respect for Mr Arnold he would stand bareheaded.

Proceeding, he claimed that he had been granted exemption from combatant service, and that he desired to serve in the Friends' Ambulance Unit. Between the time of the appeal from the Lower Tribunal to the Appeals Tribunal he had forwarded his certificate of exemption from combatant service to Bedford and it had not been sent back. He now asked that it might be returned to him for his future protection.

Mr Arnold asked Major Orde whether this certificate could not be given back, as desired, and the Major said the authorities at Bedford should be apprised of the fact, and he had no doubt the request would receive due recognition.

The Bench reassured the defendant on the point, and an order was made as in other cases.

In the case of Dimmock, he also did not admit that he was an absentee and, in reply to the Clerk, said he had religious scruples to taking combatant service.

Mr Austin said they could take no cognisance of religious scruples there, and very lucidly explained to the defendant the powers of the two Tribunals who had rejected his pleas for exemption. Now the magistrates had simply to carry out the law.

Dimmock took exception to the decision of the Tribunals, and said they had not dispensed justice.

Mr Austin pointed out that the most eloquent or lengthy speeches by Counsel even could not alter the cases at this juncture. The course of the magistrates was perfectly clear.

He was ordered to await military escort as above.

[The Luton News: Thursday, April 13th, 1916]