MILITARY SERVICE

Grey River Argus, 23 April 1942, Page 3

MILITARY SERVICE

APPEALS HEARD Hokitika Cases The Armed Forces Appeal Bound sat at Hokitika yesterday. Mr. WMeldrum presided, in association with Messrs G. Manson and A. Panther. The following appeals were adjourned sine die: —Michael J. Sullivan, farmer, Weheka; Thos. D. E'radley, farmer; Walter Evenden and James A. Bradley, Westland Power Ecard station operators; William Ellis, farm manager; Robert M. Vincent, farmer; Owen P. Dwyer, farmer; William N. Harris, farmer; John S'. De Fillipi, farmer; William A. Cron, farmer; P. A. Griffin, farmer; Fred C. Hamilton, farm hand; Walter M. Thompson, farmer; Ralph G. Havill, farmer. Appeals adjourned tc next sitting were those of Wm. J. Meharry (farm hand); Wm. P. Herbert (farm hand). The appeals of Joseph R. Condon (dairy farmer) and Thomas E. Nolan (labourer, Wataroa), were dismisses, the former’s service being postponed one month. The case of Wm. L. Dwan (one of whose brothers is a prisoner of war and the other awaiting naval service), was adjourned three months, appellant being his mother’: sole support. Robert W. Henderson (farmer), withdrew his appeal by consent. Cecil Gordon Sara (butter factory assistant), appealed for review (public interest). His employers offered to allow the reservist to train for three months, and the appeal was adjourned, reservist to train during the off season, June Ist. to September Ist. REEFTON APPEALS. The No. 5A Armed Forces Appeal Board sat at Reefton on Tuesday, Mr. W. Meldrum presiding. Mining appeals were made on the ground of public interest, and all reservists were ordered to remain in, or join, the Home Guard. Appeals for the following were adjourned sin die: Patrick L. Cowee, trucker (Blackwater Mines, Ltd); Alan Reid, mine manager (Blackwater Mines, Ltd); Norman A. Lines, farm worker; Henry G. Mellett, farmer (subject to Home Guard Service); Timothy N. McMahon, farm worker (subject to Plome Guard service); William J. August, baker (subject to Home Guard service); William J. Preen (Paparoa Coal'Co: subject to Home Guard service); William C. Lockington; D. M. McMahon, engine driver (Big River Gold Mines, Ltd, also by reservist on grounds of conscientious objection); M. J. Smith, farm work (subject to Home Guarci serice); Arthur H. Thompson, miner, and Frank D. Buckingham, miner (Ciele Coal Co); Patrick J. Galway (Pyramid Coal Co).

Appeals for George W. Mallison, miner, William T. Wearne, railway employee (by Mrs. E. Wearne) ano R. L. Wiliiscroft, farm worker were dismissed.

An appeal foi’ F. J. Dodd, engineer (by James A. Davy) ,was withdrawn. An appeal by C. J. Binsegger, labourer, on the grounds of conscientious objection was transferred to Palmerston North.

WELLINGTON, April 22. A supplement to the Gazette, published to-day, cancels the calling-up of 159 men in the various military areas in New Zealand. The following are affected ,in the West Coast portion of the Nelson area, the reason for cancellation being shown in parentheses: . David Alexander Gordon, Blaketown (Territorial Force, not a member of classes called up). Daniel Francis O’Donnell, Cronadun (Territorial Force, not a member of classes called up). William Cecil Penington, Reefcon (Territorial Force, not a member of classes called up). Charles Edward Wbolhouse, Lower Kokatahi (Territorial „ : Force, . already a member of the Armed Forces) AUCKLAND, April 21. . Nearly 50 per cent, of the Auckland reservists called in the ballot on March 25, married men from 18 to 2S years of ag’e with children, had appealed against military service, said the secretary of the Auckland Manpower Committee (Mr. L. N Harris) to-day. Auckland’s quota was 3,093, of whom 1,512 had appealed. The bulk of the appeals were on the ground of personal hardship or on behalf ot reservists on the ground that they are engaged in essential work. There was a marked decrease in the appeals on the ground of conscientious objection. Opposition was expressed by the Auckland University College. Council to a proposal by Canterbury University College that the Teachers (Conscientious Objectors and Defaulters) Regulations, 1941, should be amended so as to apply to the teaching staffs of university colleges. Discussion on the proposal, forwarded from Canterbury College, was taken in committee. When the council resumed in open meeting, the president (Mr. W. H. Cocker), said the proposal would mean that if any member of the university staff appealed for exemption from military service on conscientious grounds, whether or not the appeal was successful, the coliege council would be deprived of the right to decide what action should be taken. The member of the staff concerned would automatically cease to carry on his duties and would enter upon leave for the duration of the war. “This matter does not arise out of any case in this college," continued Mr. Cocker, “but solely out of a proposal of Canterbury College. As to the 'procedure for dealing with such cases, this council feels that the proper authority is the governing body of each council.”

The council had adopted unanimously the following resolution: — “That 'this council is opposed to the proposal of Canterbury University College on the grounds that it would involve an improper interference with the autonomy of a university college, and that matters oi this kind should be dealt with, if and when they arise, by the governing authorities of the respective colleges under the powers already possessed by them. “That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Government, the council of Canterbury College, and other college councils.” The council also approved of the following letter to be sent to Canterbury College:—-“Ordinarily the college council would be reluctant to criticise or comment upon the action of the governing body of another university, but it presumes that as a copy of the resolution was forwarded to this council, its views upon the resolution are invited, and further, the action which the Government is advised by the resolution to take, will affect all university institutions in the Dominion. The council regards it as most unwise that the Government should be invited to interfere in the affairs of university colleges in the -ivay suggested. The council feels strongly the importance of preserving the autonomy of the university colleges, particularly >in fall matters relating to appointments' and dismissals of staff, find if the Government is

invited to interfere as suggested a most unfortunate precedent may be established. For its own part th s council would not be disposed to lay down a general rule, but would think it proper to deal with each case according to its circumstances.”