MANY APPEALS HEARD

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 13239, 15 January 1941, Page 5

MANY APPEALS HEARD

MEN WHO APPEARED IN SECOND BALLOT SITTING OF MANPOWER COMMITTEE IN TAURANGA LENGTHY LIST DEALT WITH Appeals made by or on behalf of men called up in the second ballot were heard hy the No. 2 Military District Manpower Committee which met in Tauranga yesterday. The committee comprises Messrs R. Coulter (chairman), E. Wilton and G. Buchanan, and altogether 32 appeals were heard.

Once again the majority of the appeals were made by farmers or farm hands, and in a great majority of the cases all that was asked for was a postponement of the date in which teservists were obliged to enter camp, the desire being to allow the men to remain on the farms during the busy period. The chairman reiterated the statement made by him at the previous sitting in Tauranga to the effect that all reservists were expected to train as territorials at some time or other, except in exceptional circumstances. The committee was aware of the difficulties experienced in a producing district such as this and was seeking the co-operation of all farmer's and employers. One of the points raised during the hearings was that reservists going into camp in April might not he released by the end of June, by which time the busy period. on the farms would be starting again. The chairman stated that the committee had noted this point and intended to do what it could to see that no difficulty would arise as a result. He felt sure, however, that the military authorities would do their best to release the men. .The following appeals were dealt with: Mechanic’s Dilemma William-Vallance McLeod, in business on his own account; appealed and asked that his case be adjourned until such time as he is called in the overseas ballot. He stated that he was in business as a mechanic on his own account and if, when called up, he would have to close down his business. He has made application to enter the Royal Air Force as a mechanic and when accepted for the Air Force or called up for overseas service he was quite prepared to close up his business. •

The chairman said the committee appreciated the difficulty with which appellant would be faced if called upon to go into camp for three months, and adjourned the appeal until April 15. Mother Appeals For Sous

Mrs B. E. H. King appealed on behalf of her two sons, Adrien Carter King and Edwin Carter King. Appellant, in a letter to the committee, said she supplied milk to a milk vendor, but as he could not obtain labour she purchased the round. Her son Edwin was delivering the milk and Adrien was milking--40 cows. She would endeavour to dispose of her milk .round and then one of her sons would be available for training.' Her son Adrien volunteered for service at the beginning of the war but was turned down because of his occupation. In addition to the milk round her sons were also engaged in farming operations. The chairman said he thought it advisable that one of the reservists should go into the camp beginningnext month and that the other should go into a later camp. The appeals were formally dismissed on conditions that Adrien King is not required to go into camp until February 7 and that Edwin King is not required to go into camp until April 1. Appeal by Apprentice Ivan Hill Campbell, a car painter's apprentice (Mr Barrett), appealed for a postponement on the grounds that entry into camp would interfere with his training as an apprentice. The appeal was dismissed on condition that the reservist is not required for camp before February 3. ‘‘Would Have to Go Out” An appeal by A. L. Merriman, a farm hand, was supported by his father and employer, Charles Merriman, a dairyfarmer. Charles Merriman said he asked for total exemption as his health was not good and he required his son’s help on the farm. If his son were called up it would be a definite hardship. In reply to a question by the chairman, he said he it was necessary for all to have" military training, but- if his son was called up he would have to “go out.” The chairman said it was not unreasonable to ask appellant to endeavour to make arrangements to get someone to take his son s place, and the appeal would be adjourned until March 1 to enable appellant to make an effort in that direction. “All Should Train”

Another farm hand, John Gordon Cunningham, lodged an appeal, and this was supported by an appeal by his father and employer, J. T. Cunningham. J. T. Cunningham said he was a dairyfarmer. He was an old man and his son was the chief supporter of the farm. He desired that his son should be allowed to remain on pie. farm permanently as it needed him. There were only three of them on the property, the reservist, his wife and appellant. It was pointed out to appellant by the chairman that it was highly important that every eligible man should have some training, for in the event of a successful invasion the property would be worth nothing.

Appellant said that if the appeal were adjourned until March 1 he would be willing to do his best to get someone to replace his son, and this course was adopted by the committee. Total Exemption Asked For The next appeal heard was that of Leslie Ernest North, and this was supported by an appeal by his father and employer, F. W. North, a dairyfarmer. In support of his appeal F. W. North stated that his son was a first-class hand and was doing all the work on the farm. He desired total exemption as he could not afford to pay anyone else to take his son's place. There was little he could do on the farm himself because of ill health. Reservist told the committee that if an adjournment were granted lie would do his best to find someone to take his place, and the appeals were adjourned until March 1 to enable him to make an effort in this direction. “Keyniau on Farm” T. S. Ferguson, a dairyfarmer (Mr Lusk) appealed on behalf of his son, Leslie Stewart Ferguson. According to Mr Lusk reservist was the keyman on the farm and it would be difficult if he were called up for camp at present. All that was asked for was a postponement until April 1. Reservist could go into camp then, but it was desirable that he should be allowed to stay on the farm during the busy period. The appeal was dismissed subject to the reservist not being required before April 1.

“Does Not Wish to Shirk”

James R. Tilby, a dairyfarmer, appealed on behalf of himself. He was managing his own farm, and if he had to go into camp he desired that it should be in the winter. His brother had a farm adjoining his and they worked the two places together, employing casual labour for harvesting and such seasonal work. In addition to his dairying he raised pigs, grew maize and ran a small area of citrus trees. He was married in June last. For appellant Mr H. O. Cooney said he did not desire to shirk his duty but if he had to go into camp at once it would be a definite hardship. The appeal was adjourned until March 1 to give appellant the opportunity to obtain assistance. “Have to Reduce Herd” A statement that if his son went to camp he would have to reduce his herd was made by A. T. Wills, a farmer, who*"appealed for his son. The reservist also appealed. • In support of his appeal A. T. Wills said he was engaged in dairyfarming and maize growing. His son was a first-class hand and if he had to go to camp he would have to reduce his herd. He would be quite willing to let his .son go to camp if he could manage to carry on the place by himself but his health would not permit this. He might be able to manage when the cows were goingoff. He already had one son in Egypt and the other was prepared to go overseas if called. An adjournment was granted until March 1, for reconsideration sometime in March. Postponem mt Wanted Cecil Percival Ford, a farmer, appealed on behalf of himself. He was engaged in mixed farming and did not employ any other labour. What he desired was a postponement until April 1 as he could not leave the farm at the present time. He had a widowed mother who was dependent on him and there were no others to assist him. The chairman expressed concern as to who would look after appellant’s farm during his absence in camp, the appeal being formally dismissed on condition that he is not required for camp until April 1. Sou Needed on Farm J. A. Lochhead, a farmer, of Te .Puna, appealed on behalf of his son, James Leslie Lochhead, as employer. In support of his appeal he stated thta his son was, a first-class hand, and the only other assistance on the farm was provided by a daughter, and a son aged 14. If his son had to go to camp appellant desired that he should go as soon as possible as he would require him more urgently later on. The appeal was dismissed provided reservist is not required to go into camp before February 1. Labour Difficulty

Mrs M. O. I. Walker appealed on behold of her son, Eric Francis Walker. Appellant stated that her son was managing her farm at Aongatete with the help of a man aged 57. If he went to camp he would have to be replaced and she had no one else in view. She asked for total exemption owing to the difficulty of obtaining farm labour. She was entirely dependent on her two sons for carrying on her farm, the eldest one having been called up in the first ballot. She had appealed for her other sou, but the appeal was dismissed on condition that the reservist was not required to go into camp before April 1. If the boys had to go into camp production must suffer. - The appeal was adjourned until March 1 for reconsideration. Postponement Wanted Edward Arthur Garrett, a farmer, appealed on his__own behalf. He stated that he was engaged in dairyfarming and cattle raising and growing crops for winter feed. His property was also used for raisingpigs and fattening lambs. He obtained a full half share in the property with a brother, and asked that his entry into camp should be postponed until the slack season. The appeal was dismissed provided the reservist is not required to go into camp until April 1.

Uro’hors* s Stanley Ivan Merriman, a farm hand of Gate Pa. appealed and asked for postponenient of his entry into camp for six monhs. J, R. Merriman with whom the reservist is engaged in running a farm also appealed and asked for total exemption. He stated that he was sharemilking and his brother was working for him. He added that when his other brother returned from camp the difficulty ' might beovercome, The appeal was dismissed provided the reservist is not required to go into camp before April 1. or until his other brother returns. “Honest Contribution” J. Burns, a dairyfarmer, lodged an appeal in respect of his son, Robert A. Burns. Appellant said he was inexperienced in farming and the property was being run by his sou. The returns from the property had shown a big increase in the past three years,, and in the opinion of appellant his sou was making an honest contribution to the war effort by his work on the farm. If his son were required to go to camp he desired that his entry into camp he postponed until the end of the busy season. Reservist was anxious to do his best. The appeal was dismissed provided reservist is not required to go into camp before April 1. No Off Season A. W. Carmichael, a retired farmer, appealed on behalf of his son, Cyril Gordon Carmichael, who is in partnership with him in a dairy farm. Reservist, it was stated, was the manager of the business, appellant having had to give up active participation in the farming operations. Appellant stated that he fully realised the need for military training, and asked that his son’s entry into camp should be postponed. They were milking for the town supply and there was no off-season.

The appeal was dismissed provided the resevrist is not required to go into camp before April 1. Service Station Attendant An appeal was lodged by N. W. Scott, trading as Tauranga Distributing Company, in respect of W. L. Lees, a service station attendant. Appellant said, in support of his appeal, that it would take three months to train another man. He therefore asTced'' that reservist’s entry into camp be postponed for that period. He was keen to enable reservist to attend camp and was also anxious to do all he himself could for the furtherance of the war effort.

The appeal was dismissed subject to reservist not being obliged to fy) to camp before February 1.

“Will Do His Best”

An appeal in respect of Leonard James Pennant, a farm worker, was made' by his employer, G. B. Henry. In support of his application appellant stated that it would he impossible to replace the reservist at the present time. The appeal was for the postponement of the reservist’s entry into camp before April 1.

The chairman said the committee appreciated appellant’s difficulties and was wondering how he was going to carry on while reservist was away in April, May and June. Appellant said that he would do his best with the help of the children. He admitted it was hard on the children, but they could manage. The reservist, added appellant, was very anxious to go into camp.

The appeal was dismissed subject to the reservist not being required to go into camp before Aprl 1.

Partners Appeal

Howard Percy Haycock, a farmer in partnership with his brother, L. O. Haycock, appealed, the appeal being supported by one lodged by his brother.

It was stated that the brothers were the owners of the farm and were working it together. What was desired was that reservist’s entry into camp be postponed until April. There was no one else to help on the farm.

The appeal was dismissed subject to the reservist not being required for camp before April 1.

Shearer’s Appeal

Arthur Albert Petersen, a shearer, appealed on his own behalf on the grounds of undue hardship and public interest.

Appellant said that the appeal was made because he feared he might be called upon to go into camp before the shearing was finished.

"“ The appeal was dismissed provided reservist is not required to go into camp before February 1.

Dairy Factory Appeals

An appeal in respect of Alfred James Barlow, one of its employees, was jnade by the Tauranga Co-opera-tive Dairy Association, which asked that the reservist’s entry into camp be postponed until April 1. Reservist, it was stated/ was engaged in butterbox making and putting cards in cream cans. The appeal was dismissed subject to the reservist not being required before April 1.

Labour Trouble

An appeal in respect of Walter Harrison Gibson, a sharemilksr, was lodged by L. Harris, the employer of reservist.

Difficulty in obtaining labour was the reason advanced by appellant for his appeal.

The appeal was adjourned until March 1 for reconsideration. • Two Sons Galled I’p

C. J. Thomas, a dairy farmer, appealed on behalf of James Clement Thomas, one of his sons.

Appellant stated that reservist was practically in charge of his farm. His other son had also been called up in

the ballot but he was not appealing on his behalf His desire was that his two sons would not have to go into camp at the same time. The chairman said the committee considered the request to be a reasonable one, the appeal being dismissed on condition that reservist is not required to go into camp before April 1 or until his brother is released from camp. “Not Trying 'o Dodge" A statement to the effect that this was not the case of a young man trying to dodge anything was made by Mr Cooney, who appeared on behalf of James George, an engineering student. Mr Cooney stated that the reservist had not intended to appeal. His intention was to go into camp as required. but as he had read in the newspapers that students were being granted lime to continue thenstudies. he had decided to appeal. He was particularly desirous of completing his course at Canterbury University College. The committee reserved its decision to enable it to ascertain the true position with regard to students.