LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1548, 18 September 1912, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

■ (Before His Honour Mr. Justice Sim.) DRIVERS' DISPUTE COMES UP- , JUDGE ON "THREATS." UNION'S AGENT REPRIMANDED-

An award that will operate throughout the Dominion is being sought by the various drivers' unions, and tho hearing of evidence in tho dispute was heard yesterday: in the Court of Arbitration, Ijeforo Mr. Justice Sim. Messrs. Win. Scott (employers) and J. A. M'Cullough (employees) were associated with his Honour.

"The'unions concerned in the dispute were represented by Messrs. H. Hunter, of Chr'istchurch, Gco. Davis, jof Auckland, and A. Parlane, of Wellington. Thoso employers who had been cited were- represented by Mr. W. Pryor, of Wellington, and Mr. F. B. Winstono, of Auckland.

Tho districts concerned with tho dispute were: Wellington, Canterbury, Otago, Auckland, Napier, Gisborne, Palraerston North, and Wangnnui. The demands of tho union were for a week' of -171 hours, the daily work to fall between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on five days of tho week, and between 7 a.m. and noon on whatever dny tho weekly half-holiday is ! observed. For drivers of one horse, a minimum weekly wago of £2 Ms. is asked, for drivers of two horses, .£2 18s., and Is. per week extra for each additional horse. The usual provisions aro sought in respect, to casual labour, overtime, holidays, underrato workers, and preference. Counter-proposals wore submitted byt the employers. They agreed that a wcok's 1 work should consist of 4"! hours, and were willing that stable attendance should be •restricted to nine hours per week, but ■they suggested that the minimum-wage riiould-range-from £Z 3s. to £2. Ba. per Tho .Wellington. City Counoil and the Auckland City Council applied to bo exempted from the terms of the award. An. undertaking was given that the two city councils would enter into negotiations with Hie drivers' union in each place, regarding'conditions of work, and, for the timo being, both havo been struck out of the list of parties cited: 1 , . Wiiugh, nurseryman, Lower Hutt, and F. Cooper, Ltd., nurserymen, Lower Hiit' were also exempted us they had not been parties to the previous award. In granting these latter exemptions, his commented on the fact'that whenever a union came along for a new award, an endeavour was almost invariably made to add! a lot more people as parties to it. Mr. Hunter (union representative) read a very lengthy opening address to the Court." At an early stage he was told by his Honour that he must not criticise the officials. At a later stage Mr. Hunter made remarks to the effect that, if the Court would not grant their demands, thev would have to "tako other action.' Mr. Pryor here suggested that Mr. Hnnter was making use of a threat. His Honour (to Mr. Hunter): Yj?u tire practically threatening the Court, Mr. Hunter. Is it necessary to take up such a truculent attitude? . " Mr. Hunter: I am not doing it with that intention, your Honour. His Honour: Then it is very unfortunate that you should adopt such a tone. I tell'you at once, it is very, improper. Mr. Hunter repeated that it was not his intention to issue a threat. He thought that ho was merely speaking the absolute truth. His Honour: Well, you are adopting what is altogether a wrong tone. • One. of the most effectual ways of preventing yon. from getting what you seek is to make use of «' threat. The -Court" is absolutely free from all threats. Mr. Hunter: AH right, your Honour. The opening address was'then proceeded with, and subsequently a great many witnesses were called, representing unions in different centres of both islands. The evidence tendered on behalf of the union was not completed until late in the afternoon. Mr. Pryor then opened for the employers and briefly covered the sround on which the counter-proposals were based. At 4.30 p.m. the Court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day when evidence will be tendered by the employers.

INTERPRETATION. HOLIDAYS AT WOOLLEN MILLS. In the matter of the Wellington Woollen Mills' Employees' award, the Court has given its answer to a question raised by the Inspector of Awards as to how Clause 10 is to be interpreted. The. question was: Are all workers to be paid foi the holidays mentioned in the lactones Act. whether such holidavs are worked ot cot?

"There was no award in force at the Petone woollen mills," said, the Court, "before the present award (based on the Canterbury award) was made, but it had been the invariable practice at these mills not to pay male workers over IS years of ago for time lust through pnblic "holidays. The award does not deal specifically with the question. In view of the interpretation, which had been put on the Canterbury award by the parties— and which of course must have been known to the parties to the Wellington dispute—the Court is of opinion that the Wellington award must be treated as bavin? sanctioned the existing practice at the Petone mills, and that the company therefore is not bound to pay male workers over 18 years of ase for time lost public holidays."

HOTEL WORKERS. HOW THEra HOUKS ARE FIXED. In the matter of the Wellington eooks\ and waiters' award, a question was raised by the Inspector of Awards as to how the Shops and Offices Act 'affected Clause U of tho award relating to the hours of hotel worker?, and ■bs to whether tho award bad uow really lapsed. In deciding tho question the Court said: "Tho effect of the Shops and Offices Act, 1910. was to al'er the hours of work fixed by'the .award. So far, however, as related to hotels and restaurants governed by. auy. award then in force, Section 11 suspended the operation of the Act until tho expiration of the period for which such award was made. On the expiration of thnt period the alteration in hours took effect. As soon as thnt a Iteration took effect, fhen Clause 11 of- the award came into operation, and tho other provisions ceased to operate. The position, therefore, is that, subject to the legislative provisions on the subject, the hours of work, wages, nnd other conditions of work of the workers coming within the scope of the award havo to he fixed by agreement between each employer and tho individual workers employed by him.

BUTCHERS.' The award'of the Court of Arbitration was filed yesterday in the dispute between I he. Wellington Master Butchers' Industrial Union of Employers and tho Wellington Operative -Butchers' Industrial l;'nion of Workers. ' The award is based en the recommendation of the Conciliation Council, which fho parties agreed last week to accept, and particulars of which have nlreadv been published. The only alteration made is in the preference claiiFc, which bns been fettled in the fpi'in suggested at tho hearing..

COMPENSATION. FOR FLAXMILTy ACCIDENT;,. Deserved decision has been given by the Court of Arbitration in, the compensation action in which -.foliii 'Dnlzell, of Tokoma.ru, was the plai/iliff, and: Craw Bro?., llnxinillers. of Tokoniiini. ■ were (lie defendants. Mr. A. H. Jlindmarsh appeared for Iho plnintilV nt the hearing, while .Mr. <,". H. TroiKhvell appeared for the defendants. ' '■ U. was ?.rt out. in the. stntenirnt of c.lnim Hint John Dnlzi'll hnd I;«icii eiiiplnyed bv Craw tiro?, in November, J!>ll, his work rer(iiirinjc him to pre.'S low and perform other like dut'ifs. On Nhvomber 10 ho met with in. ncridenr. by nhitli his hnuil hs.J bsen renilered useless. His wanes had

averaged ,£2 Ss. per week and ho now claimed compensation equivalent In .tl I*, per week. In defence, Craw Bros, denied dial. Dalzell was in their employ at tho limn of the accident. Tlioy nfwrti'd that ho hud been employed bv ono William Suckling, lessen of tho mill.

in giving judgment, the Court lii'lil that, as Dalzoll to* not employed l\v C'rnw Bros., he was not entitled to recover compensation from (horn, unless Iho ensn enmo within lln> tonus nf Section 13 of the. Workc-iV Coniponsiiliim Act. IMS. After a review of I In- ra.M 1 , I hi' Court concluded thnt.-Biilzi'll was entitled to recover compensation under the wlinii referred to, tlie only question bi'inff (lu> amount.

J-'or tlio like Dnlzcll was in III» hospital nfc l'.ilinersloii North (November ■Jγ., 1911, to February). 11 ivwK lu> wns nllowed .£l. 1?. lior work, mid lio wns also granted a.liimi> turn lie nrrongi-d) for (ho loss of tllo iiki of his right liiind. together with costs X\2 12s. und witncf.-es" expenses.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) POLICE BUSINESS. Violet Pnton and Boso Frnsor wore •each sentonced to ouo month's imprisonment for (heir having importuned pass-ers-by in public streets. On a similar class of accusation, Ilazol Stanley, who was in a'state of-collapse, was rcinnndcd for sentence till to-day. Kato Brady, who had been deemed to be. a rogue anil a , vagabond, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Albert Murphy, alias Woods, was fined £2 on a charge of having stolen a ring, valued at £li from A. J. Ruthorford. Murphy, who was represented by Mr. A. M. balek, pleaded guilty. Over-indul-gence in drink was said to havo been the cause of his'lapse.

JUVENILE COURT. Six boys, whoso ages ranged from 12 to 15 years, were charged with tho theft cf three, electric- light globes, valued nt 10s. They were found guilty, and discharged with a caution. Tho parents were ordered to ninko restitution.

CIVIL CASES. (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) PUBLICANS IN COURT. William Archibald Fuller, publican, Seddon, sued William Butler, publican, Gladstone, -claiming .K3 13s. ■Jα., which was alleged to have been paid by tho plaintiff to Manning and Company, Ltd., tor goods supplied 10 the <leiciulant, nnd £IS is. lid. alleged to have been paid by the pliuntiu" lo Voting and Tripe, solicitors, for law costs payable by tno defendant, a total of JMI ISs. Sα., which plaintiff stated that he had been compelled to. pay by reason of the default of the defendant in-not ■ paying the same, and without payment of which the plaintiff would have" beeu "unable to obtain the benefit of an ngroe'meut for sale, dated December 5, 1910, under' which the defendant had $.old tho Starborougli Hotel to the plaintiff. ' Mr. T. C. A. Hislop, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. Fitzgibbou for the ilefeiidant. ■

The defence was that the money was not owing, and that>the plaintiff had had nc. authority to p.iy it. His Worship said that he would deliver judgment on September 24,

THE LAWYER'S BILL. In the case in which Charlotte Styles claimed £\s. 10s. from ' George Statlord Styles, cortef, ■ Kniwarra, which amount was said to be arrears of payments due on an order made under tho Destitute Persons Act, judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs £2 7s. Field and Luckie, solicitors, sued George Stafford Styles for .£3l 12s. Cd., which was alleged to be duo for work done, serricts rendered, and fees paid on behalf of defendant's wife. Judgment for plaintiffs for the amount claimed, with costs £1 11s.

PKOMISSOEY NOTE. Judgment was delivered in the case oi H. W. Davies and Co. v. E. Hume.

Plaintiff had claimed from tho defendant ,£l6 in respect of a promissory note drawn by defendant's husband in favour of the plaintiff, and endorsed by tho defendant, whifh promissory note hnd been dishonoured on presentment.

His Worship Oecided in favour of plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs.

PATENT MEDICINES. Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., delivered judgment in the case in which A. S. Lucas sued Frank Shaw, chemist, Wellington, claiming the return of certain patent medicines or in the alternative .£6 /s. lOd. At the hearing of the case, the defendant stated that ho had transferred the goods to a third person by mistake. His Worship said that in his opinion the defendant, by transferring the goods to a third person, even though by a mistake, had done' an act adopting the transaction, and, that tho property in the goods passed to him, and that he must therefore pay the plaintiff for them.

Judgment was for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs.

ALTERATION TO LIFT. Judgment was delivered in the case in which Anderson and Co. sued Dalgety and Co. for JE63, 6s. lid., for work done to a lift. The sum of .£39 Is. 6d. had been paid into Court. Judgment was for plaintiffs for .£6 95., in addition to the amount paid into Court.

UNDEFENDED CASES. In the following cases judgment was entered for the plaintiffs by default:— William Isaac and Sons v. William Garnham, £2 16s: 9d., costs 11s.; Pritchard and Mitchell v. Eliza Ann Bailey, .£9 Gs., costs .£1 ss. 6d.; Walter Stanton and ■ William Grant" Davillo Evans v. Herbert Pointou, £1 155., costs 55.; Electric Light Company .of New Zealand, Ltd., v. Percival Archer, M, costs 55.; Ehimcs and Co. v. Charles Keroneho, £2 35., costs 155.; Pritchard and-Mitchell v. Eliza Jane Bailey, 11s. Bd., costs 65.; Eddie Schober v. George Keith, ss. 6d., costs os.; Globe Printing Co., Ltd., v. Bert Edwards, £3 10s., costs 55.; Harris and Bastin, Ltd., v. Grey Valley Timber Company, Ltd., 419 9s. 4d., costs J2l 12s. 6d.; G. Hardt and Co. v. C. P. Anderson, £06 lls. Id.,' costs ,£3 18s. 3d.; James Charles Burtery v. W. Eeid, 12s. 6d., costs 53. ■."""■■'

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. W. J. Loner was ordered to pay T. Brierley 47-Bs, 6d.," by weekly instalments of ss. -■•'.•