Click here to return to the main site entry page
Click here to return to the previous page

Appeals Tribunals - County

There are many Tribunal reports in the newspapers - these are just a sample.

Rushden Echo, 7th April 1916, transcribed by Kay Collins

Rushden Claims – at County Appeals – Little Encouragement for Appellants

The Northants Appeal Tribunal sat at Northampton on Saturday, three Rushden cases being before them.

Fourteen Days’ Respite
Herbert Edward West, an attested man of 22 years, boot manufacturer, of Rushden, put back from Group 5 to Group 13, and then allowed a month, appealed on business grounds. He said he traded as West Brothers and Co., but he was the only partner in a business that consisted chiefly of the manufacture of officers’ handsewn riding and marching boots. If he left it would mean practically ruin. He has a father managing a factory at Higham Ferrers, and two brothers working in the same factory. West said he employed 36 workpeople.

The Rushden Tribunal thought that the business was really controlled by appellant’s father, who managed a factory at Higham Ferrers.

The appellant was allowed a fortnight.

Francis Pratt, managing salesman of a furniture business at Rushden, appealed against the refusal of a certificate of the Rushden Tribunal. He said he was the sole support of a widowed mother, to whom he paid £1 a week, which included his board. His mother lost one son ion the Boer War. She had severe illness, and was now ill again.

The Local Tribunal’s statement was that the appellant was employed by his brother-in-law, and they did not consider the domestic circumstances exceptional.

The appeal was dismissed.

Army Contracts
William Herbert Holyoak, of Rushden, confidential clerk in charge of all bookings, etc., for Army contracts in a boot firm at Wellingborough, appealed. His employer stated that certain incidents had happened since the appeal was lodged that called for an adjournment. Mr. Holyoak himself appealed to the Rushden Tribunal where his appeal was dismissed. Meanwhile the employer sent in an appeal to the Wellingborough tribunal, which had since been adjourned for a medical inspection.—The case was adjourned for the decision of Wellingborough Tribunal.

Rushden Echo, 14th April 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis

County Appeals Tribunal - Interesting Cases From Rushden
The Northants County Appeals Tribunal sat at the County Hall, Northampton, on Saturday and Monday and dealt with a number of cases.

Rushden Tradesman’s Appeal
Alderman George Miller, J.P., ironmonger, of Rushden, appealed from the decision of the Rushden Tribunal, who had refused the application of Alfred Gray, aged 22.

Mr. Miller declared that Gray was indispensable, as he was the only man he had to assist him in his ironmongery business. There were several Acts of Parliament which had to be conformed to, so that it was quite impossible to leave a boy or a stranger in charge while he had to be away on the performance of public duties. He had tried to get a substitute over military age, but without success. There were the pistols, ammunition and explosives regulations, which made it too risky to leave a stranger in charge. Mr. Miller said he had spoken at many recruiting meetings, and attested hundreds of men.  

The Tribunal allowed three months’ temporary exemption to allow for other assistance to be procured.

Already in The Army
When the case of Horace Allebone who had entered an appeal against a decision of the Rushden Tribunal, was called, Captain Cook, Military Representative, stated that the man was already in the Army.

Mr. Thompson (one of the Tribunal) said it was important that there should be a clear statement in these cases as to whether the man had joined voluntarily. Public feeling was very strong against men being called to the Colours while an appeal was pending.

The case was adjourned and Captain Cook said he would obtain the information Mr. Thompson had asked for.

21st April 1916

Applications from Rushden

The Appeals Tribunal for Northamptonshire sat until a late hour on Friday night last.

New Business at Rushden

The Rushden Tribunal had given Chas. Edward Ashford, a carpenter and timber merchant, of Rushden, a month from April 1, and Ashford appealed against this.

The appeal, supported by Mr. W. W. James, Wellingborough, was dismissed.

Rushden Munition Worker

Messrs. Turnell and Odell, Wellingborough, appealed on behalf of Cyril William Desborough, High-street, Rushden, on the ground that he was engaged in munition work.

Mr. Williams (for appellants) stated that Desborough was making lathes for turning shell cases for munition factories. The firm had lost one badged man, who had gone into the Service, and asked for time in which Desborough could be badged in the other’s place.

Mr. Dulley (military representative of the Wellingborough Urban Tribunal) said that Desborough had been employed as electrician at the Palace Theatre, Rushden, and afterwards at the Wellingborough Electric Theatre. It was only to enable him to keep his position, he thought, that he went into a lathe factory.

Mr. Williams said this was not the view he took. The fact that Desborough put in his nights at the Theatre was more to his credit than to his disgrace, for he was doing two men’s work.

Desborough said he was not at the Wellingborough Theatre now. He only went temporarily to take another man’s place. He was anxious to go into the motor-boat section of the Royal Navy and had his papers concerning it.

The appeal was dismissed.

Rushden Pressman

Frank Cross, Rushden, foreman pressman in a rough stuff department of Mr. Clark, who appealed for him. Cross is married, with two children.

Adjourned till May 5th.

Rushden Echo, 2nd June 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis

Rushden Decisions Challenged To The Central Tribunal

The Northants Appeals Tribunal sat at Northampton on Friday last, Mr. Stopford Sackville presiding.

Rushden Refusal Reversed

Messrs. Jaques and Clark, boot manufacturers, Rushden, appealed for a clerk in their employ, named Horace Arthur Butling.

The case was heard in private, and three months’ exemption was granted.

Rushden Hairdresser

Rufus Bradley Jephcote, a Rushden hairdresser and tobacconist, whose claim has been dismissed by the Rushden Tribunal, asked for absolute exemption, on the ground that he would be ruined if he went into the Army. He said he was unable to be present when his appeal was before the Rushden Tribunal, a sudden rush of business keeping him at home. Appellant was married in June, 1914.

The appeal was dismissed.

Rushden Echo, 30th June 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis

Rushden Co-operative Society’s Application

The Northamptonshire Appeals Tribunal dealt with several local cases at their meeting at Northampton on Friday last.

Rushden Co-op Appeal

An appeal was made on behalf of George Cecil Tew, manager of one of the grocery shops of the Rushden Co-operative Society.

A representative of the Society said they had released all their single men. One married manager had only been granted two months’ exemption.

Exemption till 23rd July, to be final.

Rushden Farmer’s Appeal

Mr. W. W. Smith, farmer, of Rushden and Wymington, appealed for exemption for Henry Horlick, aged 31, horse-keeper and general smith.

Applicant said that seven of his men had enlisted.

The application was adjourned for 14 days for inquiries.

Rushden Echo, 1st September 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis

Military Appeal

Yesterday, at the County Appeals Tribunal, the Rushden Co-operative Society applied for exemption for George Wooton (married), a baker in the employ of the Society.  The representative of the Society stated that although 2,400 men had gone from Rushden into the Army, they were supplying more bread than they were at the corresponding period last year.  Bread was being sold at Rushden at 7d per quarter loaf by all the bakers.  As the society was releasing a single baker, they hoped to retain the married man. – Exemption to Oct 14th allowed, with the intimation that efforts must be made to replace the man.

Rushden Echo, 3rd November 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis

Appeals Tribunal—At the County Appeals Tribunal on Tuesday, Jessie Bates, 32, married, upholsterer, appealed on business grounds, and said that other men in Rushden had been treated better than he had.  -  The appeal was dismissed.

Rushden Echo, 3rd November 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis

Co-Operative Society’s Appeals – The Rushden Co-operative Society appealed at the meeting of the County Tribunal on Tuesday for the conditional exemption of Joseph Walter Frear (28), married, grocery and general stores manager at Podington, and George Wootton (32), married, baker. – Exemption had been granted to Frear to Dec. 9 and to Wootton to Oct. 14. – The Military Representative opposed the exemptions on the ground that so long as exemptions were granted no serious attempt would be made to replace the men.  The representative of the Society said he had inserted 25 advertisements in different papers for a baker, but without result. – No further exemption was allowed for Frear, and Wootton was allowed until Dec. 15, final.

Rushden Echo, 22nd December 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis

Boot Manufacturer’s Appeal

At the Northants Appeals Tribunal on Monday, Ralph F. West, Rushden, general manager of West Brothers and Co.’s Higham Ferrers factory, appealed on business grounds against the final exemption to December 31st, granted by the local Tribunal.  Appellant had volunteered and had been rejected three times, but had now passed for general service.  He is aged 32, single.

Mr. A. J. Darnell (Messrs. Darnell and Price) supported the appeal, and asked that at any rate he should be allowed to remain until after stock-taking in March.  The output of the firm was 1,500 pairs a week.

The same firm appealed for George S. Craddock, a consol operator, aged 30, and married.

In answer to Mr. Mayes, Mr. West said he was not a member of the Manufacturers’ Association, but Mr. Darnell said he was willing to do what the others were doing under a scheme to release all men up to 31 years of age, passed for general service, at the end of the year, except men on certain important operations, who were to be kept back for a time to teach men over military age to work the machine.

West was allowed until March 1st (final), and Craddock to February 1st (final), on the understanding that a man over military age was taught to work the machine.

The Argus, 9th February 1917, transcribed by Kay Collins

County Appeals

William Roe (37, married), draper, of Rushden, appealed against the refusal of exemption by Rushden Tribunal. The appellant is in partnership with his brother, who has conditional exemption.—Mr. Wilson appeared for the applicant, who has been classified as B3 since the appeal.—Temporary exemption granted.

Harry Linnett (39, married), fish and chip fryer, made a personal appeal, supported by Mr. H. W. Williams. Linnitt is now putting in 40 hours in a boot factory.—Three months with liberty to apply again.

The Argus, 16th February 1917, transcribed by Kay Collins

Higham Ferrers Appeals

There were six appeals from decisions of the Higham Ferrers Tribunal, which were adjudicated upon as follows:

Walter Herbert Draper, Feb 28th (final); Fred Silas Holman, March 9th (final); and Chas. E. Saunders, Roland Cox, John Wm. Holyoak (aged 27), and Jas. Hy. Cadd (34), March 31st (final). The last two men are hairdressers, the only two left in Higham Ferrers. Mr. W. W. James (Wellingborough) appeared for Holyoak and Mr. A. J. Darnell (Northampton) for Cadd. Holyoak superintends a business for his brother in Rushden, and Cadd breeds carrier pigeons for the Government.

Sir Ryland D. Adkins, M.P., joined the court.

Rushden Horse Slaughterer

Sydney Chettle (25, single), horse slaughterer and horse keeper, Rushden. This was an appeal by the employer, the father, Geo. Chettle, against a fortnight’s exemption granted on Jan. 29th by the Rushden Tribunal. Mr. J. C. Parker (Wellingborough) appeared for the appellant, who had a large business, which would have to be given up if his son were taken. A petition with 58 signatures in favour of the appeal was put in.—Exemption to March 9th (final).

Rushden Echo, 9th March 1917, transcribed by Gill Hollis

Men Under Thirty-One
All Cases to be Reviewed
The Case of Foremen in Boot Factories

Monday, present: Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., C. Bates, G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Cross, C.C., with Mr. G. S. Mason (hon. clerk), and Mr. J. S. Mason (military representative).

The Tribunal received new regulations, ordering them to review the exemptions of all men under the age of 31, and it was decided to hold a special sitting to consider the matter.

A boot manufacturing firm appealed for a youth, aged 18, operator on an edge-trimming machine. They had lost their former edge-trimmer under the arrangement with the military, and had trained this youth to take his place, thinking they would have his services until he was 18 years and 7 months old. They asked for exemption until they could train another employee to take his place. – The Chairman explained that the Tribunal had no power to deal with the case, and that on reaching the age of 18 a youth automatically came into the Army.

A personal appeal was made by a married man (29), foreman sole-cutter and sorter. Similar appeals were made by a foreman laster and instructor of female workers, applicant, a married man, being 29 years of age; by a foreman of the clicking department (married, 29), who had to teach “green” labour; by the foreman of a lasting department (30, married), and by a foreman in a rough-stuff department (31, married). In all these cases the firms had not placed the names of the men on their lists. – Exemption was granted until March 31st.

A master butcher (32, single), conducting the business single-handed, was granted two months’ exemption, this being the only butcher’s shop in a populous district.

A mother appealed for her son, aged 18, and said she had two sons in France and one at Northampton with a fractured skull. – The Chairman: We have no power to deal with a young man of 18 years of age.

Rushden Argus, 4th May 1917, transcribed by Kay Collins

County Tribunal - Rushden Case

Claud H. Lilley (25, single), manager of currying business, Rushden.—This was an appeal by Alfred Lilley, the father and employer. Mr. J. C. Parker, Wellingborough, appeared for the applicant. It was explained that the father was death and could not read or write. The son was practically manager of the business, and without him works would have to be closed.—Appeal dismissed.

Conscientious Objector

Charles H. S. Jones (18, single), journalist, Rushden.—This was a personal appeal. Jones was described as employed by Mr. C. Cross, of the “Rushden Echo,” as journalist, and in the printing department. In his application he said that he was opposed to war between nations, because it was rushing to brutal barbarism.—The Clerk to the Tribunal having read the appeal on these lines for several minutes, Lord Annaly asked if they were to sit and listen to this “balderdash.”—The Chairman: Is there much more?—There appeared, from the quantity of paper shown by the Clerk, to be much more.—The Applicant: I can save you trouble; I have summarised the statement here.

The applicant read the summary. He based his objections, he said, on Socialism, and his Socialism on Christian teaching.—Rushden Tribunal reported that the objection appeared to be purely on political grounds.—The Chairman: Your uncle is a newspaper proprietor, and you are employed by a newspaper , and you write in your application about the “venal Press.”—Appeal dismissed.—Subsequently Jones asked if he could appeal, and the Chairman said, “Yes, certainly.”

Rushden Echo, 25th May 1917

Further Exemption for a Rushden Man

Sir Charles Knightley presided on Friday last, when a number of local cases were dealt with.

Harry Linnett, fried-fish dealer, of Rushden, in Category B1, who made a personal appeal, was represented by Mr. H. W. Williams, solicitor.  Applicant works in a shoe factory as a toe-plater during the day.  – The Tribunal granted a further exemption to July 31st (final).

Rushden Argus, 24th August 1917, transcribed by Kay Collins

Rushden Bakers

Percy Hart (25, married), Rushden, Baker, employed by Mr. Wright, who is 64 years of age; William A. Tilstone (26, married), Rushden, baker, employed by Mr. Walter Tilley.—These were military appeals, and were resisted by Mr. J. C. Wilson for the employers.—Exemption was granted in each case for two months (final).

Rushden Printer

William James Neville (31, married), printer, stationer, tobacconist, etc., Rushden.—This was a military appeal.—It was said to be a one-man business, and would have to be closed if this man went into the Army. Mr. J. C. Parker appeared for Neville, who for some time has been doing “the early morning shift” on motor tractors seven days a week.—Exemption was granted till December 1st. (final).

Rushden Family Record

With Sir W. Ryland D. Adkins, M.P., in the chair.

Bertram Booth (38, married), Rushden, employed by the Midland Railway Co.—This was a military appeal, but was not pressed by. Capt. Cook, and was dismissed.

Francis U. Glidle (30, single), Rushden, boot machine operator.—This was a military appeal.—Glidle said that he had five brothers, who all entered the Army. Two were dead, and three were in hospital. He kept the home going. His father was blind, and was completely deaf.—The Chairman said this case had exceptional features.—Exemption was granted to December 26th (final).

Rushden Argus, 31st August 1917, transcribed by Gill Hollis

Rushden Decisions Reversed
On the Appeal of the Military

At the County Tribunal on Friday last the military appealed in seven cases in which the Rushden Tribunal had granted exemptions.  These cases formed part of the batch of military appeals which led the Rushden Tribunal recently to go on “strike.”  It will be remembered that in 14 cases the Rushden Tribunal gave exemptions for various periods, the exemptions in six of the cases being given on the advice of the Advisory Committee.  When the Rushden Tribunal went on “strike,” the War Office promised that the military appeals should be withdrawn in the six cases, and that they should not be pressed in the other cases.  As will be seen, however, the County Tribunal in some of these cases, notwithstanding the promise of the War Office, reversed the decisions of the Rushden Tribunal.

Rushden Cases

Three months final was the decision in the case of Hubert Ingle (30, married), manager of the Rushden leather business of Messrs. Ingle & Co.  Mr. J. C. Wilson stated that Ingle was driving a motor tractor 55 hours a week.  Mr. T. C. Woods (at the request of Mr. Noel Mobbs) resisted the appeal of the military representative.  Mr. Wilson said that if Ingle were sent into the Army the Rushden leather branch would have to be closed.  The firm had lost 18 men through enlistment.

Two months final exemption was given in the cases of Percy Hart (25, single, A) and William A. Tilstone (28, married, A) bread bakers at Rushden.  Mr. J. C. Wilson appeared in both cases to oppose the military appeals.  Hart is in the employment of Mr. Wright, Newton-road, Rushden, and Tilstone works for Mr. W. Tilley, Wellingborough-road, Rushden.

Mr. J. C. Parker resisted the military appeal against William James Neville (31, married, A), stationer, tobacconist, etc., High-street, Rushden.  Neville also does work on a tractor. – December 1st (final).

The military had entered an appeal in the case of Walter H. Dix (37, married), of Washbrook-road, Rushden, manufacturer of baking powder and other food preparations.  Capt. Cook, military representative, said that as this appellant was in category Ciii, he would not press the case.  The military appeal was dismissed.

Capt. Cook did not press the military appeal in the case of Bertram Booth (38, married), employed at Rushden M.R. goods depot. – Appeal was dismissed.

The military appealed against Francis U. Glidle (30, single), boot operator, of Rushden, who stated that all his five brothers had joined up; two had been killed, and three are in hospital.  The father is blind and completely deaf, and applicant was the only one to keep the home going.  Sir Ryland Adkins said these personal facts led to the Tribunal allowing exemption to December 26th (final).

Click here to return to the main index of features
Click here to return to the War index
Click here to e-mail us