SERVICE APPEALS

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 259, 29 July 1941, Page 5

SERVICE APPEALS

Wellington Decisions

The No. 4 Armed Forces Appeal Board sat in Wellington yesterday. The board comprised Mr. W. F. Stilwell, S.M. (chairman), Mr. A. Parlane and Mr. P. Coyle, with Mr. C. O. Bell, Crown representative. Two conscientious appeals were heard and dismissed. Adjournmen ts sine die on the ground of pubhc interest were granted the Wellington Hospital Board in respect of the loliowing:—

Graham Aitken, assistant pathologist; i-inusuy J. Jiiacli, auenuel »\oel Uinver, W muiin xreiu, junior nouse surgeono; ouim nurquuur ruiulay, Wiurain Ireuenca jircuouneil, xueiiaru xvaii Kap.ey oaerley, unai year ineuieal stuueurs; VViuiam Wyurow xxaiiwrignt, uurry Uanun.un xrviue, urst year nouse aurgeous; n niiaui xnuinas xxeuaguau, oentax surgeon tio join xa.x’.d. wiuiin xi clays;; Xxernard Javan riami, -y-ruy tecnmcian. Tue appear xor Itoy Herbert Kilinister, Stan, clera, was ■ dismissed, subject to bis not being caned up oeiure October 2S, 1041. un the application of the Director of National Service, adjournments sine die, to' be reviewed in six months, were granted in appears for the touowmg Department oi Agriculture employees; — Krnest David Andrews and or man Banlord Jamieson, assistant biocnemiets; James William Barmer, agricultural instructor; Baui Burbidge Dynch, assistant held crop experimentalist; Brie Mervyn Ojala, assistant agricultural instructor. These adjournments) were on the ground of public interest. Prestige (N.Z.), Dtd., were granted sine die adjournments on the grounds of public interest and hardship for Leonard Wilson Nicol, operaior-Histruetor, and Kenneth Harold McDonald, hosiery mechanic. The decisions will be reviewed in six months. . An appeal by the Director of National Service for Charles Carl Orsulich, Public Trust, office clerk, was held over. Sine die adjournments were granted, on the ground of public interest, in respect of: — , . , Wi'liam Henry Kay Bundy, fisherman: Albert Ralph Pawley, fisherman; Harry Lambeth, fisherman; James George Tulloch, fisherman. The appeal of F. Whiteman, farmer, Upper Hutt, for Thomas Auld, farm hand, on the grounds of _ public interest and hardship, was dismissed, the reservist not to be called up before October 28. A similar appeal by A. A. Kilmister, dairyfarmer, for Alan Gordon Aplin, milk roundsman and milker, was dismissed, the reservist not to be called up before September 25. W. Nicol, Pahautanui, appealed likewise for his son, Lionel William Nicol, farm manager, and was granted a sine die adjournment with a direction for the reservist to join the Home Guard. The appeal, on the ground of hardsh.p, of C. J. Phelps for Michael Coory, fibrous plaster apprentice, was dismissed. Time was sought for a completion of Coory’s apprenticeship. The appeal, .bn the grounds of public interest and hardship, by Commission Wool Scourers, Ltd., for Frederick Valentine Freeman, wool dryer operator, was dismissed. Conscientious Objectors.

He had belonged to the Methodist Church all his life, and actively assisted in youth work, said James Olds, civil servant, a conscientious objector. He bad been leader of a junior church class foe the past five months, and was an area orranizer for a year. He could not belong to the army in any respect. The medical corps could be filled with conscientious objectors; this would only leave more fit and willing men to fight. This “orps was part of the effort to win the war. He hail refused a transfer to defence area headquarters when staff was being placed there from other departments. The appeal was dismissed.

It was commanded to “render 2<>od unto all,” said James Robertson Fordyce, gardener, who stated that God had called him three years ago to study for the ministry’, and His will must come before that of the'country. . He had done some local preaching, for 18. months at the Pentecostal Church, where he had been an attending adherent for four years. 'Asked what ministry he would job

appellant replied that he would be what was termed a free-lance. “I could not possibly be a soldier,” said appellant. “If l"saw defenceless women being attacked, all I could do would be to exhort the attacker. I could not use violence. I would have to leave it to God to judge him." The appeal was dismissed.