BALLOT APPEALS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 61, Issue 37, 23 November 1940, Page 3

BALLOT APPEALS

CASES HEARD YESTERDAY.

SITTING IN ASHBURTON. The sitting of the South Canterbury Man-power Committee was continued yesterday after the “Guardian” went to press in hearing the appeals of ballot men from the Ashburton district. The case of William Eric Chambers, of Mount Hutt, tractor driver, was concluded.

The appeals were dismissed conditional on Chambers not being called up before April 1.

Father Appeals for Son.

An appeal for six months for George Grant Low, of Mount Hutt, farm hand, was made by his father and employer, .Robert .T. Low, on the ground of public interest and hardship. Mr Dart appeared for appellant. It was stated that appellant had a farm of 360 acres, on which he ran 830 adult sheep, plus lambs, while he had 70 acres in wheat, 17 in oats, 10 in peas and 8 in linen flax. Appellant favoured his son going into camp, but it would be impossible to replace his son for tractor work and header harvesting. The caso was dismissed, the ballotted man not to be called up before April 1. Farming On His Own. On the ground of public interest and hardship, in that he carried out. cropping and ran sheep and had no one to take over the property in his absence an appeal was made by William Martin, of llakaia, a married man. He was the only man on the farm, it was stated. The appeal was adjourned to March 15.

Appeal for Employee. Norman Stanley Murdoch, of Mayfield, appealed on behalf of D’Arcy Alexander Anderson, a farm hand, on the grounds of public interest and hardship. The appeal set out that of 1700 acres in the farm, 350 acres were ploughed by Anderson, who was a good sheep man and had to take charge of the sheep during appellant’s frequent periods of indisposition. Anderson was kept busy with the tractor. The appeal was dismissed, Anderson not to be called up before April 1.

Mother and Son. On the ground of hardship, John Murdoch MacKenzie, of Methven, agricultural farmer, and liis widowed mother’ Margaret MacKenzie, appealed. Mr Dart appeared for both. The statement of the appeal said that the farm comprised 181 acres, of which 50 acres were in wheat, 15 in oats and 27 to go into turnips and rape. There were 210 ewes, with 90 per cent lambs. There were three other sons at home, the eldest being 17. It would be difficult to get a man to take the son’s place, and she had not sufficient knowledge of farming to give efficient instructions to a new man in the absence of her son in camp. The appeals were adjourned sine die. A Capable Man. Oswald E. Hooper, farmer, of Mitcham, appealed on behalf of . William Adam, farm labourer, on the ground of public interest and hardship till after harvest.

The appellant stated that he had 275 acres in crop and carried 200 sheep. One of his employees was serving overseas and* another was waiting to go into camp, while Adam, the most capable man he had had in 20 years of farming, was his last man. The appeal was dismissed, Adam not to be called up before April 1. Farmer and Contractor. David James Scarth, of Dromore, farmer and contractor, appealed on the ground of public interest and said that he had 800 acres, and had only one permanent employee, a lad of 17. Some of his land was seven miles from his homestead. If he went into camp be did not see how he could keep up his farming programme and keep up his harvesting contracting. At present, he said, it was almost impossible to get labour to whom he could entrust his machines. At times he employed two lads, and they worked at night to get through. He would have to pay high wages to get an efficient man. The case was adjourned till March 15.

Postponement Sought. On the ground of public interest, Norman Janies Woolley, of Eiffelton, farmer, appeared for release till April 30. He was represented by Mr V. W. llusscll. It was stated that appellant bad 413 acres (150 in wheat, 30 in barley, and 25 in oats) and he carried 320 sheep. He' did all the work on his farm and employed casual ‘ labour only in the- autumn. . His brother, with the adjoining farm, could help with the farm work while appellant was in camp, provided he was given an extension of time'.

The appeal was dismissed, a condition being that appellant is not called up before April 1.