BACK WAGES.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 165, 6 April 1908, Page 8

BACK WAGES.

i THE DRURY TRADESMAN'S CASE. PRESS CRITICISM. nr TELEGKArii— srEcur, correspondent. 5 Auckland, April 3. The "Herald" takes a strong tone in connection witli the case of the Drury contractor, Dixon, recently committed to gaol for refusing to comply with a magisterial 1 decision of Mr. H. W. Northcroft to pay back wages to a former employee. In a leading article the paper named says: "It is not often that a' respected citizen of this Dominion has to go t-o gaol rather than submit to what 'is a very evident injustice, but 1 at the present time a Drury tradesman is lying in Jit. Eden gaol under circumstances which entitle him to the sympathy of all fair-minded men. The circumstances are briefly that after Mr. Dixon, of Drury, .had been fined by the Arbitration Court for breach of award in - employing an alleged incompetent journeyman at mutually agreed rates without a permit, ho Was proceeded against by the journeyman to reeovcr his back wages—the difference between the wages agreed upon and the award rate. The magistrate before whom the case was heard appeared to have considered that the Bench had no option in the matter, and promptly enforced what he regarded as the law, condemning Mr Dixon to pay tliese ' back wages,' amounting to over £20, with the alternative of two months' imprisonment. Wo have no adverse criticism ,to make upon the magisterial decision, for our latter, day statutes are so incompletely devised that they may require a magistrate to give many decisions with which he cannot be in personal agreement; but wo say emphatically that the Government has no right to allow a worthy citizen to lio in gaol as the only alternative to submission to unmistakable injustice. The law is obviously uniust, and the Government is responsible if it does not immediately order Mr. Dixon's unconditional release, for so far from being wilfully contemptuous of the law and the courts of law, Mr'. Dixon immediately paid the £5 fine ini.poscd upon him by the Arbitration Court, and is resisting now, not the law itself, but what he very naturally regards as a grievous injustice which is being- perpetrated upon him under cover of laiv. If we turn from law to equity, from tho mero letter of a statute to the spirit which alone can keep statutes alivo, it is plain to everybody that the claim for " back wages," when mutually agreed upon wages/had been paid, can havo no standing, and it is an absurd and pernicious law which gives a workman an everlasting claim for wages regardless of all the circumstances. Supposing the mutual arrangement had been going on for years, as it might in a country township, are wo to think that hundreds of pounds could he claimed as " back wages," and summarily ordered by a Magistrate's Court upon pain of long imprisonment ? Tliero was 110 wrong suffered by either party to this mutual agreement. The award was violated uir doubtcdly, and both parties to the violation wore: fined in proportion to their supposed means, but the fine once,paid the law was avenged, and there tho matter ought to end. But the matter does not end. Tho employer is again dragged into Court, and, becauso he will not allow himself t<v be unjustly dealt with, as thrown into gaol. We wait" to see what The Prime Minister and the. Government intone! to do about it." ... MAGISTRATE'S ' STATEMENT.. Interviev/ed to-day, Mr. Northcroft, S.M., stated that tho facts of tho case, as nearly as ho could remember, were as follow: — Mr. Dixon took into his employ a man at wages contrary to tho award, of tho Arbitration Court. Tho employeo subsequently sued for the dilfereneo, and- was represented by Mr. Skelton. Tlioro had bean a' precedent to this caso in that of a printer at Pahiatua, who a few years ago, having been employed , for less than tho minimum wago, sued for £'200, judgment being entered for this amount. Mr. Dixon had appeared to consider tho contract as ono between man and man, anil ono whioh 110: law could upset, lie had given notico of appeal to Mr. Northcroft, but, after consultation with his solicitor; abandoned, tho proposal, stating that hb would go to gaol before ho would pay. When tho caso camo up ho (Mr. Northcroft) had no option but to deal with it in terms of tho I award.. . •

A REPLY. Auckland, April 4. A brother of W. Dixon, writin;;. to tho "Star," states: "Mr. Northcroft says that AV. Di:;on appeared to consider tho contract as ono between man and man, and one which no law could upset. That is not the reason that my brother considered tho law could not upset tho contract. Ho maintains that this man was 1113 own apprentice, and was prepared to prove it before the Arbitration Court if : ho could have rot a proper hearing, which lie did not get- Then 'Mr. Northcroft says that my brother gave notice of appeal, but after, consultation with his solicitor abandoned tlio proposal, stating that ho would, go to gaol before lie would pay. Now my brother did /not abandon the proposal, but'after giving notice of appeal received a form from tho Clerk of the Court, and filled it in correctly as far as lie knew,' but through some technical point,' of which I have .never yet heard, ho was refusal' his appeal. So you see ho has never yet had a chanco to prove his caso, and there is no wonder that tho public are so indignant about it, and aro determined to have tlio matter thrashed out."