LAWYERS APPEAL

New Zealand Herald, Volume 80, Issue 24631, 9 July 1943, Page 4

LAWYERS APPEAL

NINE AUCKLAND CASES CALLING UP POSTPONED Appeals in respect of nine Auckland barristers and solicitors and one law | accountant came before the No. 1 (Auckland) Armed Forces Appeal Board yesterday. In all cases the appeals were based oil public interest and undue hardship. On behalf of the Auckland District Law Society, Mr. J. B. Johnston referred to the acute position in the legal profession resulting from the drain on manpower. The society was not concerned with any individual appeal, but had given instructions for <i general review to be made of the position regarding practitioners. "Law societies in New Zealand have been concerned lor some time regarding the _ manpower position in the profession," said Mr. Johnston. "While both principals and members of stall's are being called up in fairly large numbers, the volume of work is not diminishing in the same proportion. It is doubtful whether the actual work is decreasing to any extent." Reductions in Staffs The president of the Auckland District Law Society, Mr. J. Stanton, said the number of principals had been reduced from 379 to 298. The qualified stall had been reduced from 95 to 39, and the unqualified stall' from 122 to 38. In the case of Charles Henry Massey Wills, barrister and solicitor, who gave evidence concerning his legal practice, the chairman of the committee, Mr. 0. R. Orr Walker, S.M., pointed out that the records stated that appellant had refused to take the oath of allegiance at the time of his medical examination. The chairman considered the matter should be brought forward to give the reservist a chance to explain. Explanation Made "I have never refused to take the oath," replied appellant, "i have taken it on two previous occasions at least. One time was for my admission to the Bar and the other was when I joined Lho Home Guard. As lar as the present instance is concerned, I mentioned at the time that I objected to being required to take the oath under a man of the calibre of Mr. Semple. My family had a good record in the last war, and I regarded this question as one of principle." Mr. 'I. P. McCread.v (a member of the board): You would have had no objection to joining Mr. Robert Semple if you had been elected as a Labour candidate. Appellant: 1 was never a Labour candidate. Alter appellant had dealt with his domestic responsibilities in support of his appeal on hardship grounds, the case was adjourned sine die, in view of the exceptional circumstances, The appeal of Hnon Lucien Martyn Buisson was struck out for lack of prosecution, and sine die adjournments were granted in the other cases.

COSTLY PIG HUNT POLICE COURT SEQUEL (•0.C.) NEW PLYMOUTH. Thursday Wanton damage done to property at Maeroa by a party of pig hunters led to the appearance of two youths—Gordon Shaw, plasterer, of Auckland, and Darcv Jury, mechanic, of New Plymouth —in the Police Court at Kit ham. Two other youths were charged in the Children's Court. Constable Fleming said the four youths went on to a property, broke into a dwelling, stole a rifle and rabbit traps, took or damaged other articles, and shot holes in two water tanks. It looked as though they did all the damage they could, said the constable. When questioned by the police, they all told a number of lies to mislead and cau.se the police a great deal of trouble. Shaw pleaded guilty to stealing a rabbit trap and rifle and to two other charges of mischief. Jury admitted one charge of wilful damage and theft of a towel. Convictions were entered on all charges. Shaw was fined £5 and ordered to make restitution amounting to £2 2s. Jury was fined £o on the wilful damage charge and ordered to make restitution of an amount to be determined, and on the theft charge was ordered to come up for sentence in sixmonths' time. RELEASE OF NURSE FATHER'S APPEAL ALLOWED Reference to the fact that the Auckland Hospital Board had made calls for extra staff at about the time it had withdrawn its opposition to the release of a nurse was made by the manpower officer, Mr. C. G. S. Ellis, at a sitting of the Auckland Manpower (Industrial) Committee yesterday. The case was one in which Samuel Brown (Mr. Goldstine) appealed against the manpower officer's decision in directing his daughter. Miss N. E. Brown, as a nurse to the Auckland Hospital Board's service. The domestic difficulties on which the appeal was based were outlined by appellant, who stated that his wife was ill and the girl was needed at home. She should be readily available when she was required. Mr. Ellis said the girl applied for her release from her work at the hospital some time ago, but permission was not granted by the manpower officer. Subsequently, the Hospital Board forwarded a letter withdrawing its opposition to the nurse's release. However, the manpower officer opposed {he application on general grounds. The hospital was understaffed, and about- the time it had withdrawn its opposition to the release, the board had been asking for additional stall'. Although permission to leave was refused, the girl ceased her duties and joined the service of Dr. Mangos and Mr. Riehworth, dentists. At the request. of the Hospital Board, which stated that it; now required Miss Brown as an auxiliary nurse, the manpower officer directed her back. It was against that direction that the appeal was lodged. The appeal was allowed.