We have received a communication from the War Office respecting
our comment on the case of Leaman v. The King in our issue of July 31st. We are assured that it was an " entire mistake " to say, as we did, that Mr. Leaman, having been enlisted and paid at the rate of 6s. a day for nearly two years, was compelled to refund the balance of his pay over the ls. a day to which, the War Office found, he was really entitled. We are told that he " was not compelled to refund the balance, and as a matter of fact he did not do so." We can only say in reply that our authority was the Times law report of July 23rd last. The petitioner stated that he had been " compelled by deduction from his reduced rate of pay to make good the alleged debt" of £120. Furthermore, the Solicitor-General seemed to confirm this statement by pleading that the War Office had repaid the petitioner his £120 " as a matter of bounty." We cannot reconcile the Times report with the War Office communication, but we should be glad to think that the department has been unjustly maligned in this singular case.
Previous page
