MILITARY APPEAL BOARD

Waikato Times, Volume 88, Issue 13389, 17 January 1917, Page 4

MILITARY APPEAL BOARD

SITTING AT HAMILTON. I Tito Miliary Aj:jhal Court for tin; ! .ii::kian!i district, (.<>111j>:• issn,Mr I'm-: gess, S.M., i!< nt. and Messrs Kl- | ! and o- sittings i in H.iiiiilton litis in, : n■ t;-r. Major Con- I '.an n |-t.• enU-'l tis»- i>- : t n<v ' !><■;nri- I Mill': FAMif.Y V.\]' ! -I 1 r I Jan VI k, i- pM.-Wd ! I ac-eate! as eon* i■ isi . <:uit! llio | ! v.'as t]«lic !■!. ■ | ] A(.E A Ni) i 1,1,-1 lE.ii.TI!. I I'M' ! «'d on liit.' grm.nd n;_,o and ul»> J ill- 1 ' -aiiit. Appellant, wh. did r, ■! b>. ,1c r. .bust, stan d that ito was 17 year- d age. 11,ta use to Now Zealand -lu years a pi, and was then a boy oi seven. Ho submitted a written statement, which was a lengthy list of illnesses and accidents ho had undergone. As Brown emild no proof ago, llh> Board decided to leave (lie appeal over until alter he had been examined hv tiie -Mtdieal Board. DAI it Y FARMER'S APPEAL. Reginald Harold Priest, dairy farmer, Oriir, Taupiri, ai']>'aK-d mi the ground that i-is calling up would l:e contrary to the publis int-t'vst and entail undue hardship. Appellant gave evidence that, with his brother, he worked a dairy farm (which was only partly improved) of 10-5 acres, and milked 30 cows. His brother had been.laid up for some weeks past, and was ui.a'-lc io >v..s k ilic phu c singlehande 1. Ho had three married brothers, two of whom w, re on farms of their own about half a mile from appellant's, hut being unable to procure labour they were not in a position to assist in working his. Exam'ne 1 hy Major Coiil.tn, appellant gave details of the work on the farm, and also his financial position. He had fulfilled Irs territorial duties, and stated that he would be ready to go into camp at the end of April. A neighbour, named William Lusty, gave evidence bearing out appellant's statements. Exemption was granted till 30th April. Appellant thanked the Hoard for the consideration thov had shown him. EMPLOYERS' REPRESENTATIONS. William Webb, refrigerating engineer, Frankton, appealed on the ground that being called up would be contrary to public interest. Appellant explained that he did not personally seek exemption, but an extension. He understood, however, that his employers (the New Zealand Farmers' Cooperative Bacon, and Meat Packing , Company) had lodged an appeal on his behalf. He explained that he had previously enlisted, but had been turned down by the doctors, and had, in consequence, entered into financial obligations, which he desired time to arrange. A. E. Eggleston, local manager for the employing company, gave evidence . as to the scarcity of refrigerating engineers, and the inconvenience and hardship which the loss of Webb's services would entail; it was not improbable that t would mean the curtailment of the output of the company's works—a, serious thing for the farmers. It was most difficult to secure skilled and qralified men to take charge of refrigerating machinery, but the company would not lodge appeals in the cases of men whom it could replace. The appeal was disallowed, hut an extension was granted until 31st March. NO APPEARANCE. William Brown, farmer, Fencourt, and —"Noonan, miner, did not appear when their names were called. TO-DAY'$ PROCEEDINGS. * The sittings of the Board were re sumed this morning. CONSIDERATION DEFERRED. , Joseph Leslie Ranby, Ohaupo, ap- .- p:a!ed on the ground that his calling up was contrary to public interest, his calling being that of farm manager. Anpellant deposed that his father was ■ blind, and he was managing his father's faim of 6(0 acres. He had three . brothers, aged 17, 13, and 9 respectively. The farm was a general one, and r they milk'd a herd of about 120 cows. They had a family of sha emilkers for one dairy, and milked tlie remainder themselves. Appellant did some of the , milking himself. He had two brothersone a creamery manager, and the other a bee-kcoper. The farm was about half improve! Appellant's duties were those of working manager, "if he had to go to the front his father, wh i had been hi nd for six years, and was unable to do anything on the farm, would suffer great harJsh'p. Efforts , had been made to obtain a,manager, but a satisfactory man had not Leva obtained. Appellant's father was placed in the | box, and gave evidence as to his ijosition. He stated that his son had been most anxious to go to the front, but had been prevented by the c'rcumstancqs in which he was placed. Witness had 19 nephews at the front, and he as a Briton would be very sorry that his son would have to be sent. If witness "ould dispose of his farm appellant would enlist at once. There were about 30 people on the farm, and if his sort were sent, these meif would have tojHftfcscharged. He gave evidence value of his farm. The appeal was adjourned for Tmw months, at the end of which time it will be again considered. ANOTHER ADJOURNMENT. Philip Hemmings appealed on the ground that his calling up would be contrary to pub'ic interest. He was managing his fathers farm at Woodleigh, which comprised 093 acres. A statement was received from the father as to his circumstances, and the hardship which the loss of his son's serv.ces would cntad. He also enclosed a medical certificate to the effect that he (the father) was suffering from several disabilities, and was unable to do much work himself. Another son, who left with the 17th Reinforcements, had a farm which his brother-in-law, who had a farm of his own, was assisting to manage, and he could not help in the management of the Wondleigh farm. Appellant gave evidence as to the work he was doing on the farm, and stated that every effort was being made to effect a sale of the property. If this were done, there would bo no reason why appellant should not go. He had no objection to military service. I ho appeal was adjourned for .' months when it will again come up for consideration. Mr C. L. Ma-Dhrmid appeared for the appellant. A CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES. George !' ussy, contractor, Matamata. applied for an extension. He stated that ho had volunteered, but had boon rejected. He bad, therefore, undertaken further responsibilities, and having now been pa-so I by the Medical Board he asked for time to arrange his business. Ho had a ni.'nil or of horses and other property la dispose of. •An extension until 20; h March was < granted. TILL HIS BROTHER COMFS BACK. 5 Borthwiek Colpoys Coalbaker, farmer, appealed on the ground of undue hard- ' ship, and that his falling up would bo ■; contrarv to th-> ] übl : c interest. Apnol ant, in his statement, donosed c that he was manag'ng a farm in tho '

Tuaknti disirifl of LO'lO acres,, odd ol which belong. (I hi his hroiher who uas si lli" front. His br.»lh< r and In- had Viil;mi"-crc(l, and leii it lu the doctor Id do ide n hich should go. His mother, who was ncai |y Uf>, was dependo.nl upon ":m. He had !,, relations who Could run tiic laiiu, ;,|| il ,■ w „•]; •■; \ Inch ho did himsoi!. lie r, i: !y risked for evemp: on i::,lil ■m li ' r • •i■ : .1.;, iher '1 lie . |'p" d >.'.■: - ;. ij •'.: ,; ■; lor lour !]!• il- iis, w '■■ il il; ease will ''■ ■: again on>'>! a• '. A (~■« l>i i(»X OF AGE. .). ''a Fie ; . .i. : !';■!■,•(•!■, ,m ,er. 1,',,!'. ! n: ii. :j.;c.i,d , „ ih, .;,.. :. 1 „l being e- . ... . ]! had ~o |--.o ..; ago, Inn ■■: ■ ■ ■ :;e ;.- ; ': irn in i ..'! -in re in Aiipeil mi u - vTfinh'd si - -: months in Vi hit Ji iii i ir.-i' lii'-e ; 11.. •:, ' ■!: h iie i:ndi r- :, uk lo '.;, I iTolil ! i .-iii-. NuT ESTABLISH F.D. William Hi'own, farmer, I'iiicourt, appeall d on the gn unci of nndii • i ard.Jiip. as his aged parents and a deformed brother were v.h 1-y dcp< nd ( ni upon Appellant gave evident as In his position, and stated that his fa iher was a confirmed invalid, over SO years of ape, and h : s mother about "•*>, while his brother was crippled, and could no! get aboul lieey. He had three brothers. He did not know whore two were, bul the third was iii I'Vatherston. lie had been the so'o support of the family for aboul 10 years. Appellant Mas examined as to hi» financial position. The Board did not consider appellant b.d es ablished undue hardship, and granted an extension until 28th February. WITHDRAWN. Kirkwood Oorringe, Tc Rapa, who lodged an appeal on the ground of undue hardsh'p, had since failed lo pass the medieal ic t, and the appeal was therefore withdrawn. UNDER A .MISAPPREHENSION. William George Pearce appealed on the ground of undue hardship, and also thai his calling up would be contrary lo public interest, as he was an engineer employed in the Huntly collieries, and his place Would be difficult to fill He considered thai single men should go first. Appellant deposed that he was a married man with one child, and had been married about lo months. Upon it being pointed out that though the Act classified him as a single man for calling up purposes, he would, however, rank as a married man in the , matter of allowances. Appellant stated he was not aware of this, and asked for time to make ar- . rangements, and he was allowed until ,' 28th February. DIDN'T LIKE TO ASK. [ John Richard appealed on . the g.fund of undue hardship, as he was managing a farm for his father. Appellant stated he had three brothers . (one of whom was wounded and on the > way home 1 ) at the front,, and also a sister in England as nurse. His father . was a cripple, over 70 years of age, and , his mother over CO. These were depent dent upon him. He did not like to ask J for exemption, and IF one of his brothers came back, and was able to . carry on the farm, he would volunteer [ at once. The Board remarked that this was not . a shirking family, and granted exemp- • tion while applicant's parents were dependent upon him. , APPEAL DISMISSED. Hugo Catewell, farmer, Kaipaki, appealed on the ground of undue hardship. 1 After hearing appellant's statement as to his position the appeal wqs. (lismissed, hut an extension was granted till the end of April. EXTENSIONS GRANTED. Philio Vigot Norman, surveyor, was granted an extension until 28th February. Appellant stated that he had en- . listed but had been rejected. He had , considerable work on hand, and though I he had worked throughout the holidays he had been unable to overtake it. , He was granted an extension until . 2nd February. Benjamin Gill, a farmer, was granted an extension to the same date. I MANAGING A SHEEP FARM. Harold Francis Pope appealed on the . ground that his calling up would ho . contrary to public interest, and also on , the ground of undue hardship in that he was the only son of his mother, n I widow, and the only one to work the . farm of 1000 acres at Wairetuna. , Appellant deposed that the farm com- , prised 1000 acres, which was valued at \ £5 per acre. Some of it was in grass, . and it carried .about 500 sheep and 400 lambs. He was the only man employed. . The farm was mortgaged for £sooo,'the mortgagees being being a Wellington . company. If he left, the farm would nave to be sold as the returns were , small, and his mother was practically an invalid. He was 21 years of age, , and had been managing the farm for I about three years, having previously had , some experience in the south. v His l mother was suffering from a nervous , breakdown, and was unable at present to transact business of any kind. He I was being" examined as to the returns [ from the farm, but stated that it was I not the financial aspect, but his mother's , condition, with which he was concerned, as he believed that if he had to go it ; would cause a relapse. If the Board • would grant an exemption for two. or three months he would endeavour to make arrangements to carry on the place. He had no objection to military service. The Board adjourned the appeal for three months, when it will be again considered. There nre 119 appeals to be heard, and the Board will sit in Hamilton until Wednesday next, 24th inst. The -apportionment is as follows:—17 \ ere disposed of yesterday, 20 will be hear.l today. 16 on to-morrow, 24 on Friday, *2 on Tuesday, and 20 on Wednesday".