Luton magistrates had before them on Saturday [January 13th, 1917] the first prosecution under the Military Service Act in respect of the making of false statements or representations for the purpose of obtaining exemption from military service.

Two charges were preferred at the instance of Lieut Herbert Gardner, Assistant Military Representative for the recruiting area of which Luton forms a part, against Rowland Prince, aged 33, a photographer carrying on business in the name of Arnold at 7 Cheapside. They concerned statements made in appeals to the County Appeals tribunal on August 18th and December 1st. He elected to be dealt with summarily.

It was explained by Town Clerk Mr William Smith, prosecuting, that in the application made by defendant to the Local Tribunal he said he was married, and gave the date of his marriage as December 26th, 1908. He claimed as a photographer, frame and overmantel maker, on grounds 'd' and 'e' - serious hardship owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations or domestic position and ill-health or infirmity.

In the course of his application he said he had businesses in Luton and Leicester but had had to close one at Oxford and that his wife was in delicate health and under the care of three doctors, and was consumptive and incapable of taking over the control of the business.

On July 5th the Local Tribunal dismissed his application, against which he appealed. In the notice of his appeal he said that his wife was very ill and was about to undergo an operation for appendicitis, and was also suffering from acute anaemia. She had cost him £5 a week for a long time, being under medical attention, and if he was called up he could not imagine what would happen to her. On August 18th he was granted temporary exemption to December 1st.

When the Town Clerk called for the exemption card, Mr Lort Williams (defence counsel) said the Town Clerk was not entitled to ask for it. Mr Smith replied that as a special constable he could exercise a special constable's right and demand the production of a certificate at any time. The defendant, however, said he did not have the certificate with him.

On December 1st, said the Town Clerk, the defendant made another appeal, submitting that owing to the continued illness of his wife his business would have to close down, and the result of this would be that his wife's health and life would be endangered, as she would be deprived of the care, attention and nourishment necessary to her recovery.

The Appeal Tribunal adjourned the case to last Monday, when he admitted that the lady upon whom he had placed such stress was not his lawful wife, but a woman with whom he was living. Therefore, the Appeals Tribunal was "somewhat misled".

The defence raised objections to contradictory statements that had not been properly proved being used in evidence, but this was dismissed as "absolutely frivolous".

For the defence, Mr Williams submitted that there was no case to answer as the charge was one which could have been brought under the Perjury Act, and therefore corroboration was necessary as to the falsity alleged. Even is this were not the case, he argued that the question of whether or not the woman was defendant's wife was not a material issue before the Tribunal, and ought not to have made the slightest difference. Further, there was nothing in the laws of the country to prevent a man calling a woman his wife if he chose.

The bench decided again counsel's contentions, and defendant went into the box. He declared that at the time his first appeal was prepared and put before the Tribunal, solicitor Mr Lathom well knew that the lady he was living with was not his wife, and advised him that as regards military law she was his wife.

He had come to Luton two years last October, and she was living with him then and ever since she had lived with him as his wife and borne his name and been known as his wife. His actual wife had left him five years earlier and he had not seen her since.

Before the case was disposed of, Mr Lathom was called from his office to deny ever having seen the defendant or advising him as had been alleged.

Subsequently an appeal for leniency was made by Mr Lort Williams, who urged that all his client had been fighting for was that he might be in a position to look after the woman whom he regarded as his wife and was so known by repute.

The magistrates retired and on their return said the reason for their adjournment was to discuss whether it would not be wise to send the defendant to prison. In view of all the circumstances, however, they had decided to inflict a fine of £5 and £2 7s 6d costs, and they hoped it would be a warning to any others who had to appear before the Tribunals.

[The Luton Reporter: Monday, January 15th, 1917]