WHO OWNS THE HALL?

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1965, 23 January 1914, Page 11

WHO OWNS THE HALL?

|K|||REO (Eos * OR^pTHERS?|g| STRIKE? f^s-:^s ; :- ; W";i;-'."~~""'''Y ;;; :v^y : '?:jif'S' :S|ißyHTcic«roßh.-Pj:(!ss ; S e^ifjii?^' ■"..''■:' WalhJ, January'' 21\iw? ■1;. , .-The. hearing •of the Milters' - Union'ease --'in-, which tho Waihi Trade Union Workers..(Federation) took action against itlw Ohinemm-i Minors'' and Batteries « °'l fo vril ' tr ation) for the, possession of a hall and £500 damages was concluded this.evening. Messrs. G'Regau and Moresby appeared for tho complainant union, and Dr. Bamford.-and Mr.v Clondon ior the defendants. "'■ <■* ■~ The , evidence of B. E. Haves (Registrar oi tho- Industrial Societies" and jrade Unions) and F. \V. Rowley (Deputy Registrar) as taken in Welling-.ton-was read and put in. , .. ■"■ •• Evidence for the- plaintiffs was given by W. li. Parry (president of the old Industrial Union of Workers), M'Leiliinii (vice-president), Franklin (secretary)! Rtvd MaeMillan (cx-seeretary). . l)r. Bamfard, in moving for a'wonsuit, said' that tho whole procedure seemed. , to him to ho entirely mistaken. •In regard to th* claim for damages-tho question- Was whether the comp'lairiaHt union- was tho beneficial owner of the property. His principft] grounds for nonsuit were: (1) Tliat the complainant wnwn had no right- or power to sue in its own name;, (2) that it had been proved by evidence that there was a written declaration, of trust of the property which had not been put in by the complainant union, and' that the Court could not.give judgment as there was no evidence of trust before it; (3) that it -was for the' complainant union t<3 show that it 'had succeeded to tho property of the old Industrial Union. Ho_ further submitted tiiat the complainant union could only sue under its trustees, and that the latter , should bo the plaintiffs in tho present case. It had not. been proved that the complainant .union wore tho legal successors of tho old Industrial Union. •' Mr. O'Rogan replied at considerable length to tlievarious jwiiits raised, quot» ing authorities and judgments. He contended that they had' acted properly in regard to taking action iii the name of tho complainant union and sot in tho rmme of the trustees. Ho had carefully Considered that point, and submitted that it was' supported by authorities, and that it was a proper course of action'. Counsel admitted that, when the union agreed fo "cau-eeJJatioii, if, would' havo been quite legal for any member to have taken' proceedings to ascertain .their riglitiu tho matter of assets,, and having the same apportioned .by' -tho Court. N-o action, however, was taken, because all were satisfied. The trustees undoubtedly hold tho property in trust, and he submitted that the document ef. trust referred to by the opposing counsel had lost all significance' when the cancellation was effected. Ho asked tho Court to say that the complainant union was the lawful owner of tho hall. Thequestion as to who wore entitled-to be declared members of that union was ono to bo decided later on, but not now. The substantial remedy which they wore seeking was the possession of the hall, though ho submitted that they were entitled to some damage. ■ • .. ■ Tho Magistrate (Sir. Burgess) said that be would give ' his ' decision at a later.-. Court.