MILITARY SERVICE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 21, 24 January 1917, Page 8

MILITARY SERVICE.

iVAIKATO APPBAT.S,

FARM LABOUR DIFFICULTY,,

(From_OmM©wn -Correspondent.);

HAMILTON, this day.

The sittings of the Military Servica Appeal Board were Tesumed yesterday afternoon, the personnel of the Court 'being as follows: —Messrs. Burgess, Elliott and J. McCanv. Major Conlan, assisted hy Sergeant-Major Cotton, represented the Department. Victor Jabilee Smith, Vraneh secretary for Booth, McDonald, and Co., Hamilton, askctl for an extension of time. Mr Hopkins, who appeared for the appellant, stated that he ihad twice enlisted voluntarily, but as he had been turned down by approved medical men, he entered into fresh, business, which he now asked time to arrange. Appellant asked for an extension of time to March 20. He had not. an opportunity to arrange his affairs, though lie had, been working all through the holidays, "with the exception of two days he had been in Auckland, and had been busy coaching a returned soldier to take up Ihis position since he had passed the Medical Board. The Board granted an extension until March 4. MANAGING TWO FARMS. Leo Edward Rice, JTgahenepoui, appeared on the ground of undue hardship, i AppeSant deposed that he was manag- * ing two farms for hie parents—one of 400 acres, and the other 370 acres. His father was totally incapacitated, and his mother was unable to do any work. The farms were devoted to sheep and dry cattle.

The appeal was allowed, and total exemption granted. Mr Luxford appeared for the appellant. ENGINEER AND SHIPOWNER. Walter Hdward Forbes, engineer and shipowner, Marokopa, appealed on the. ground of undue hardship. Appellant deposed that he was a married man. with one child, and was interested in a. small iboat -which traded between Marokopa and Kawhia. and the settlers were dependent upon her. Appellant was examined as to his financial petition* in regard to the launch, and <was asked if two months would assist Mm. He replied in negative, but thought 'he might manage to make some arrangements in six. The appeal was dismissed, the appellant being granted an extension until March 3L DAIRT .FARMER'S DIFFICULTY. •Tames Jamieson, Clements, dairy farmer. Pokuru, appealed on the ground of undue hardship. Mr. Luxford, •who appeared for appellant, stated that he was managing his tfathers farm of ISS acres. His parents and a brother and sister were dependent •upon appellant. The father, mother, and brother were invalids, and were unable to do any work. They had a herd of 37 cows, Tfhich. appellant and his sister milked. The farm, would not pay wages. ,

Peter Clements, father of the appel-. lant. gave evidence as to his financial position. He had 'been forbidden by tbie doctors to do anything for two and ahalf years. His wife was also unable to assist. Hi 3 son, Peter, who was a7so at home, was consumptive, and he iras

! -unable to do anything but tie lightest of wort. If the appellant were sent to the front lie could not carry on; the return of the farm would not pay labour. Appellant had no personal objections to serving, but was only deterred from going by the position da which, the family -were. The Board were not of the opinion that this was a. case for total exemption, but granted ait extension, until April 30. - '

A! TOUCHING STORY. Frank Thomas Redmond, farmer, Te Mawhai, appealed on the ground of undue hardship. Appellant (who was represented hv Mr. Luxford) deposed that he liad neither brothers nor sisters, and was working a farm of 190 acres native leasehold. His father -was alive, but -was not living with his mother, who had left him 14 years ago. His mother had struggled on alone since then, and from the savings of a small shop she had invested in a farm. The farm was not self-support-ing, and the appellant 'had to do outside work to keep things going. He had sought advice from his neighbours as to whether he should enlist, and they had advised him that his duty was to remain with his mother. He was a married man, but he was not urging that as a reason why he should not go tw the front.

William Fairbura Stewart, postmaster. Te Awamutu, deposed as to the position of appellant's mother, who had had a heavy struggle for many years, and he believed that if the son -were taken the -whole structure would collapse about their ears. Witness stated that he had two sons of his own at the front, and another had offered five times, but he had advised the appellant to remain at home, and he believed that if the boy were taken it would be the end of the farm as well as the mother.

Thomas Gihnore 'Martin, farmer, Te Awamutu. gave corroborative evidence.

The Board adjourned the appeal for four months.

A PERTINENT QUESTION.

David Robert Lockhead, dairy farmer, Karapiro, appealed on the ground of undue hardship. He stated that ihe had taken up a dairy farm of 102 acres, and employed no labour. He had married in February, 1916. He had one brother at the front.

To Major Conlon: Previous to taking "up the present farm he had been engaged in bush work, and possibly he should have enlisted before he took up the farm, but he 'had a brother at the front, and did not think it was neces;sary.

The Major* expressed the view , that a man of the first division who took up property after the passing of the Act ■was not entitled to much, consideration.

The Board dismissed the appeal, but granted an extension until April 30,

PARTNER IN TWO FAKMS,

! John. Alexander Watt, dairy farmer and cheese-factory owner at Cambridge, appealed on the ground of undue iiardf£iip.

'Mr. Hears appeared for appellant, who •stated that he was in partnership with ' his brother Charles on two farms; these, with another brother, Gilbert, were in partnership in a cheese factory. His brother Gharles was at the front, and . one sister had also returned invalided. from France, where she had been engaged as a nuiae. The appellant "was examined as to his, financial position, after which the Board expressed the opinion]

that there -was no reason for permanent*'exemption, as it was only a case of obtaining a competent manager, which ■the evidence shiowed the appellant was in a position to pay. The appeal was dismissed, but an extension wae allowed to 31st March. SHAKE-MILKING CONTRACT. Andrew Stephen Wilson, sharemilker, appeared <on the ground of undue hardship. Hβ gave evidence to the effect that his mother and sister were dependent upon him, and all tfhree were en- '

gaged on a eliarcmilking contract. He had had one brother killed in France, ' and a second 'had left with, the 15th Reinforcements. He was the only sob at •home. The Board adjourned the case for four months, or until such time as the brother now at the front'returned fit for work. BROTHER AT THE FRONT. George Frederick Nicholson, farmer, Otorohanga, appealed on the ground of undue liardßbip, and also that his calling up would not be in the public in-

terest. Appellant stated that he has 590 acres 0.R.P., which he held with his brother, who bad gone to the front with the Fifth Reinforcements, and he went with the stipulation that appellant should stop and look after the place-. In addition an invalid sister was dependent upon 'him. He was residing on the land and did not employ labour. After examining the appellant" as to life position and his liabilities, the Board intimated thfet it would adjourn the case sine die, or until appellant's brother came back.

VOLUNTEERED AND REJECTED. Henry Weekes, dairy farmer, Kaipake, appealed on the ground of undue hardship. Appellant had volunteered for service last July, and had been rejected. He had three brothers with the British forces in France. His employer for whom he was working also asked for an extension for appellant. This was granted till 2tird March. MANAGER FOR SOLDIERS. Alfred Henry Xorrish, farmer, Cambridge, appealed on the ground of un-

due hardship. Appellant deposed that he was managing a farm of 696 acres for his father and two brothers who were at the'front. His father was not able to do much, and another brother was not in robust health, and would not be able to carry -on the work of the farm. T m Appellant's father gave .evidence ac to the position in which he would be placed if the appellant were taken. The Board adjourned the appeal sine die, or until such,time as one of the

sons now at the front return in a. condition *o carry on the farm. '£. JEWELLER'S OBJECTIONS Donald Churches, jeweller, Hamilton, applied for an extension of time for two months. He explained that he ihad volunteered but had been rejected, and had eince married. For financial and domestic reasons he asked for an extension for I two months, and was granted until 6tU March. SURVEYOR'S ASSISTANT. Cecil Williams, surveyor's assistant, applied for extension of time. He explained that he had enlisted, but had not got through. He had been assisting his employer, who had also been called up, to make up arrears of work. Hie employer had been granted until the 6th March, and appellant asked for some concession.—Granted. A MERCER FARMER. G. S; Hanson, farmer, Mercer, appealed oh the ground of undue 'hardship. Appellant deposed that his mother, aged 78, and a sister who was not strong, were dependent upon him. The Board was examining him ac to his financial position, but the appellant stated that his mother twas the moefc important consideration. The Board did not consider the appellant had made out a sufficiently strong case for exemption, but granted an extension until April 1.

NO CASE FOB, EXEMPTION. laonel Cyril Day, cheesemaker, Bruntwood, applied for exemption on account of undue hardship. Hie mother and two eieters -were absolutely dependent upon ■him. Hie father was still alive, but did not contribute towards his mother's support. His mother was practically a chronic invalid. Appellant earned £3 per week, with 10 pep cent war bonus, out of which he paid his mother £2 per month, and be also paid the interest and other charges on. his mother's property at Cambridge. Examined iby Major Conlon, appellant stated that his father was working, and possibly should contribute towards his mother's support. He ivae examined as to the" reasons of hie parents' disagreement. Replying to a remark o£ the Major's, that the ofcairman of the Recruiting Board-at Cambridge had not a very exalted opinion of him as a patriot, the appellant said he would have volunteered had he not had dependents. ' He had been exempted from Territorial duties because of a weak heart. The Board was of opinion that this was not a case fyf ' exemption, but granted an extension until April L COUSINS AT THE FRONT. John Stanley McMillan, farmer, Cambridge, appealed on the ground of undue hardship. He had stayed at home to look after the stock to let three cousins go to the front, one of -whom was posted as missing and the other two were severely wounded —one in France and the other in England. Appellant was willing to go, but asked for five months' extension. He had two brothers—one aged 14, and the other was milking on a farm of hie father's. Major Conlon pointed out that appellant should have, with his brother, been caught under clause 35. The appeal was dismissed, but an extension was granted until March 31. * PREVIOUSLY REJECTED.

•Eflward Emmctt McGrauguron, farmer. Ohinewai, appealed on the ground of undue hardship. Appellant bad to 'work a farm for himself and father, who was

almost blind. If the Government ; take the land for returned soldiers' nn poses the objection would he overa™;* With his brother, who was appellant worked 553 acres at OMnein? and there -was another property' ing to his father at Papatoetoe, coninrj«l ing 322 acres, which appellant had tn work. He volunteered twelve montU - ago, but was rejected. At thattime-hT ■" had a brother-in-law who was willin. ta take up his interest in the farm, b u t j, • had since taken up another farm. ■ 3W S; Board dismissed the appeal, and granted an extension until March 31. WHIP MAKERS SCARCE; Basil Henry, whip plaiter, Hamilton appealed on the ground t'dat his bein» called up would be contrary to public interest, as whip-makers were scared -If appellant had to go his employers (G« & Bros.) would have to close their factorY W His employers also intimated that wefe '' the appellant taken they would be nnahl* to fill his place in the Southern Hanisphere. The worst feature of >the-case " was the apprentices, who would probably he denied the opportunity of J- Ltheir trade if the appellant were takV-n;' Major Conlon stated that it was pr». posed to meet the cases of apprentices bo : situated by providing that they be : il-;-lowed an opportunity of finishing their time after the war. After hearing^theV--evidence of the employer the Board missed the appeal, but granted an exfension until March 1. : '