APPEALS FROM THE BALLOT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3037, 26 March 1917, Page 6

APPEALS FROM THE BALLOT

WAIRARAPA RUN-HOLDER'S CASE APPEAL DISMISSED Bj- Telejrraph-Special Correspondent. Masterton, March 25. At the sitting of the Second Military Appeal Board on Saturday, Hugh H. Beetham, sheepfarmor, of Brancepeth, appealed on behalf of his son, Orengard Beetham. Tlie latter also appealed on his own behalf. Mr. M. Myers, who appeared for the appellants, stated that Orengard Beetham was in charge of tho stucT flock on the station; and also had special training which enabled him to act as shearing-machine expert. The station, staff was reduced to the irreducible minimum, and it would he a serious thing if the production were allowed to. deteriorate. A brother or the junior appellant was already on active service abroad.

After hearing the evidence the board said it believed ■ that assistance could bo obtained; and tlie pastoral industry of the Dominion would not unduly snffer by the absence of the appellant. The app3al was therefore dismissed. Leave of absence was granted till June 20. A Misunderstanding. In dismissing the appeal of a. young man who had been called up under Clause 35 after having bad already enlisted and been discharged, the cnUii--man of the board said_6oine' misunderstanding seemed to exist rcgardiiig 'the operation of "Clause 35. Appellants who had previously volunteered, or had had some service, felt indignant at being called up under it, being under the impression that it applied only to the . Families of brothers none of whom had either served or volunteered. Mr. Poynton said that, this 'was not so. ■ It was a provision for enabling the Minister of Defence to call up brothers without waiting for them to volunteer or be. balloted for; It did not matter if one or -more of : them had volunteered or not. ■' .. ■ .

THE SHEARING PROBLEM RAISED AT AN APPEAL. By Telegraph—Press Association. Christohurch, March 24. Before~"the Military Service Board today, Stewart Maxwell Elliott, a shearer, appealed 'on tho ground of the scarcity of shearers in the wool industry. The Shearers' ■ Union also appealed on his behalf. Appellant stated that he had been' shearing for some seasons; and- last season had shorn between 5000 and 600.0 sheep. He was a a bona of the Shearers' Union.- ...

The secretary of the union stated that there were about 2500 shea'rers in New Zealaud, including Afaoris. The ballots had resulted in some 500 of the men being, drawn. So far not more than 20-shearers had been exempted in New Zealand. There was, a very difficult problem ahead of them in securing a sufficient number of shearers for the next season, and there certainly would not- be half enough unless some new .field.to draw upon were opened up. Witness assured the board that no reliance could be placed ou the Australian shearers next season, as ho knew they were not coming to New Zealand because there were not sufficient wo-rkr men over there to supply .Australia's own wants. A great majority of tho New Zealand shearers were in tho First Division. Whether the Australian men camo over next; season or not, there must be a shortage. •. - . . The appeal was adjourned sino die, on condition that the appellant continued in his occupation as a shearer.