THE, MILITARY APPEAL CASE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue LXXIV, 28 March 1918, Page 8

THE, MILITARY APPEAL CASE.

(To tli© Editor.) Sir, —In regard to the report of Mr Bishop's appeal appearing in your last Saturday's issue, and Mr Pacey's letter on the following Monday, will you please allow me space for a word of explanation. In the report the following paragraph appeared: llr Pacey, one of the largest builders and contractors in Hawera, declined to sign the document because Mr Whittington did all his, bricklayingj and in any case he declined to sign a request for any man's exemption on principle." The word "because" shoula not have been inserted, and makes nxv evidence appear that Mr Pacey gave as a reason for not signing the petition the fact that he employed Mr Whittington. I was asked by the Court who did Mr Pacey's bricklaying. I replied that he employed Mr Whittington, and further added, on my own responsibility, that Mr Pacey declined to sign on principle. My evidence was simply a statement of fact, and was not intended to convey j any impression that Mr Pacey's refusal to sign the document was due to the fact that he employed Mr Whittington and not Mr Bishop S. LOCKHART.