MILITARY SERVICE.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 November 1916, Page 8

MILITARY SERVICE.

APPEAL CASES. , . The following appeals were heard at yesterday's sitting of tlie .Military Service Appeal l!uar,l a.t Ihuvera. Dennis King, dairy rrtrmer, appealed on the grounds of occupation and hardship. Mr, O'Dea appeared for the appellant. The appellant said lie was a farmer, and resided on tlie Skeet Road, Kapnni. He was one of a family of eleven, of whom three were brothers (including himself), and the others were sisters. Appellant leased a farm from his mother at £2 per acre, with the right of purchase at £4O per acre. Appellant was milking- 84 cows by machine, and lie employed one man as an assistant, and also a housekeeper. It was difficult to secure labor at the present time, and when a farmer secured a good man he would advise him to keep him. If appellant had to sell out now it would finaner.il loss to ;iim. Appellant owed £4OO on the cows to his mother, and -he had paid £3OO off that liability. Applicant had one brother at home, assisting his mother, while the other brother was farming at Awatuna. The brother at Awatuna was milking 30 cows by himself, and was riot in a position to help appellant . Appellant did not think the farm could afford a manager—that is, if the man were to work under the snma conditions as appellant. Appellant was working sixteen hours a day, and he did not think a working manager would do that. Again, appellant considered there was no certainty that a manager would remain on the farmer while appellant was on service. A working manager would require about £'2oo a year and bis keep, and such men were hard to get. Farmers had to pay casual laborers from £2 10s to £3 and their keep. Appellant had made approximately a profit of £2OO off the farm last year, and last season was one of the best as regarded the price received for butterfat; the dairy factory in his locality paid Is 7d. In the pre-war days the average price paid was between Is and Is 3d. Appellant did not think he should be caL'.'d upon for service, because he was engaged in an industry essential to the welfare of the country. If appellant bad to sell lip now, he would lose all that he iiad put into the farm.

In reply to Captain Walker, appellant said lie took the farm from his mother three years ago. Appellant did not suppose his mother would li?ve any trouble in re-leasing the farm occupied by him if lie were to go to the front. Appellant could not sell liis con's so well just now as he could in the winter-time. Appellant's cows at the present time were worth about £7 a iiead, and in about five months' i\me they v/ould be valued at about £9. The Chairman: In Jl&reli? Appellant: No. In March they would be worth no more than they are now. Captain Walker: When do you expect to go and do your duty to your country? Do you ever expect to go? Do you want to go? —Appellant replied that lie always wanted to go, but had been prevented from volunteering because of his position with the farm. Captain Walker closely examined the appellant us to the position lie would be in if he liad to liave a forced sale, and showed that appellant would have something like £SOO. In further leplying to Captain Walker appellant said lie ought to go before his youngest brother, who was with his mother. Hi'. O'Dea said that most dairy farmers sell their dairy stock in June, July, and August, and dairy herds were never sold at times other than at the end of the milking season. Mr. Perry: This is one of tile best glowing seasons the district lias had?— Yes. Don't you think, ttien, this would create a demand f<ir stock?—lt might 3 little. In reply to Mr. McLaren, appellant said lie had not made any inquiries from labor bureaux for a man to take' his place on the farm. In reply to Captain Walker, appellant stated that lie liad spent fivr years in the volunteers, which prompted Mr. McLaren to ask the appellant if he did not feel that that was in the nature of an incentive to go and fig'lit for his country.

Appellant: I have felt that from the very first I would like to go, but my position prevented me from doing so. Mr. McLaren: It was your financial position that held you back? —Yes. Do you know that families have made very great personal sacrifices?—l believe they have, but I don't think anybody would be making the same sacrifices a-" myself. Mr. McLaren remarked that lie. knew of cases where young fellows had stepped off their farms at the call oi duty, leaving t'lieir properties to neighbors to look after. Appellant: That was rather a risky thing to do. Mr. McLaren: Yes; but they did that all for their country's sake. Appellant further replying to Mr. McLaren, admitted that others in the cities bad mille great personal sacrifices, but with these, he said, many would obtain their old billet 9 when they returned. In appellant's case he would probably not have his farm to return to, and that he would have to go and work for Ss a day. Mr. McLaren: As you have already shown to Captain Walker, you will have £SOO. The Chairman: In addition to what will accumulate in interest, etc.l Appellant: Yes. Mr. O'Dea said he wished to point out to tlhe Board that the appellant was not a shirker, and he realised that all young men, whether they had financial responsibilities or not, would have to go to the front. He hoped the Board, however, would see that no undue hardship was placed upon any young man, and tliat every man would be given a reasonable time tj arrange his financial affairs.

The Board reserved its decision for five months, and granted suspension from military service for that period, provided appellant remained ill his present occupation. The Board expected that at the expiration of that period, or before, King would enlist. John Francis King appealed on the ground of occupation and hardship. Mr. O'Dea read a letter from the appellant's mother, a widow. She pointed out that this son was the only one she now had to manage the farm. Appellant said he had not been able to eome across a man who would stay permanently on the farm and manage it satisfactorily if he were away. ITe personally took the milk to the factory. Had been in the Territorials, and about a month ago applied for exemption from drill on the ground of undue hardship, and, the Defence Department not opposing it, exemption was granted for the period he applied for, namely, three months. He had the management of another farm of 200 acres belonging to his mother, on which there were share-milkers. The home /arm of 214 acres was worth about £3O per acre, but the other bad been offered for sale for £2:O without . finding a buyer. There was 110 possibility of his brother looking tfter l\is own place and taking tlie management of the home farm as well.

In reply to Captain Walker, appellant said that he did not know his mother's financial position, or how much she was making out of the farms. lie did not keep tlie accounts, and, for all ne knew to the contrary, she might be losing money. The Chairman: Do you mean to tell the Board that \ hi don't know whether your mother is mating money or losing money on the farm, or that you hiivu no idea wh:>t she i? making? Appellant.- I kuow that she is not los'ng money.

Pressed further on this point by tile chairman, appellant said that they were making about £fiOO a year from tlx home farm from the cows. On the farm let to sliaremilkers he did not know what his mother got out of it. At this stage Captain Walker said it dio not appear that it was any use going oil further with this appellant's evidence at the present stage. He did not appeal on the ground of undue hardship to himself if he were called up, but 011 the ground of nndw! hardship that would be inf.'cted on another—his mother. He apparently could not give the Court any information in regard to her financial position, and if the case were adjourne-l the mother would be subpoenaed and would supply this information. It could then be better ascertained whether it would not be possible to obtain a man outside the military reserve to take cl;nrge of this farm. The Court agreed :o this suggestion, and Mrs. King's evidence as to her financial position Avill be tnkou in camera. I'l the case of the O'Reilly Bros., Captain Walker said that, subject to the Board's approval, a satisfactory arrangement had been come to. There wor; three single brothers appealing; John ft«ed 20, Kobert 35, and James 30, farming at Inglewood and Wavcrley, In the case of John and James they will go into camp; tlu decision in their case to be reserved for one month, so as to allow then: practically 9ix weeks to make their arrangements. In the case of Kobert. it appeared necessary for one to remain to take charge of the combined farming operations, and in his case the appeal would be allowed. He (Captain Walker) would just mention that under section 35. even if appeals were allowed, the men's names' would go back into the ballot and might be drawn next month, or might already have been drawn, so that it did not necessarily moan that they were losing these men. After a fuller statement of the appellants' case by Mr. Powell (of Messrs Welsh & McCarthy's ofliec-), the Cour( agreed to the course suggested by Captain Walker. Ml-. Powell mentioned that another brother, Charles, bad not appealed, and in the event of the notice having been served on him he then became, in the al senee of any appeal, ipso facto a member of the military force. The arrangement that James should enlist at once vas made, amongst other conditions, on the understanding that Charles would be exempted. If, however, Charles were now called up for service, what would James' position be? The chairman said that in that eventuality James must lodge a fresh appeal,- - Stur.

SITTINGS CONCLUDED. By 'jVegrapli.—Press Association. Hawera, Lust Night, The Military Appeal Board epncltuled Its two days' sitting at IJawera. Sayeval cases ware vjtli. One was dismissed, two wgfp allowed, and the others were adjourned for periods of one te fivg months to allow appellants the Opportunity ef gjti'jyjng o\er t]ie busy facing se'tioon er arranging their liusinea; affairs, v