LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1985, 16 February 1914, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

1 SUPREME COURT. ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES; A WOMAN ACQUIRED. A woman named Jean Miliard, stood her trial at the Supreme Court on Saturday morning, before His Honour the Chief Justice,. Sir Robert Stout, on a charge of false pretences. It was charged against her that she obtained £19 from John Hall Flocktoii, by representing that she,was the owner of the furniture in a house, No. 3 Queen Street, when such was not the case. Mr. P. S. K. Maeassey conducted the prosecution, and Mr. ¥. 8,. Meredith represented accused. John Hall Flockton, furniture dealer, Manners Street, gave evidence that in J.une last accused came to his shop, and represented that she had beeti a hoard-inghouse-keeper, tat was giving it up, and wanted .to sell her furniture. Witness went and examined the furniture, and offered £19 for it. This was accepted. Accused signed a reeeipt for an instalment ef £2, in the liawe of Jean Aubrey. At' the. time witness asked was she any relation of ft Mr. Aubrey, who had resided at Hutt, and she said, "No." Witness took delivery'of the goods, aild the next day Mr. Aubrey' catte and claimed the goods, and later took- an action, and got 'judgment for £60' and costs. Altogether, the matter cost about £100. Accused had distinctly represented that she was the owner.of the furniture. - . 'Cross-examined, witness .-said he offered £19 for the furniture, which was contained in a sevon-roomed house. . Mr. Meredith: The Slagisteate valued the furnituVe at £60?— Yes, but he never saw it. \ ■ ' • Witness explained that the action . had been delayed, and he had sold the furniture. Aubrey verbally offered tofind'£l9 for the-furniture. . Did you take any action te prevent the sale of the'furniture?—'No; because I thought the whole thing was a conspiracy. , : • When you-wore removing tho furniture, did you hear .the woman next door say there would be trouble if Aubrey came home?—No,. You remember the carter, saying he hoard it?—He said something about it. .Witness said he eit-h'er paM £51 or £61 to Aubrey, in - settlement' of tho claim. He was asked to give a anteo notto prosecute, hut refused to do so.

Wm. Aubrey, carpenter and joiner, said that the accused was his housekeeper in June last at No. 5 Queen' Street. On Juno 16 witness was away' from the house, He returned in the evening, and found all the furniture gone. Aeoused was also cone.. Sho had no interest in the furniture,. and had no authority to sell it. Witness found out next morning where the furniture was, and went and saw Flockton. He offered £19 to , get the furniture "back, and Flacktmi refused to liavo anything to do with him. He received -£51 as a . settlement of the claim he brought. • Cross-exnmined, witness said accused had been his house-keener for s?von years. Durinc leost of that time they ran a'boarditigliniise.; He did not pay accused''wages'then. He lielieve'cl she helped to get thp plara On n. previous occasion slvf sold diiTerqnt furniture, to* pay / medical expenses. This was with the consent of witness. Ho agreed accused Considered sho Imd a share in the WrdinKhousc. She had no share in the furniture, and witness had no ,; irfca that sji© was goinc to sell'it. '.Therft. about : £150 worth of furniture in the bouse.'

Detcctiv.c Andrews gave rvidence that lie served tho. summons an accused.-, Aubrey Was present, and said that accused had been drinking' at tlie time, or she would rot hav-o done it. Accused made no reply. This concluded the- case for the prosecution. No evidence was called in defence, but Mr. Meredith, addressing the jury, 'said that tho accused had been assisting in, the running of .tho boardingliouse.: Sho handlwl all the money.' and got ho wages. The facts showed slip was a shareholder in the. business, and she believed she Istad a fight to soli the furniture.' %q matter of a (livisipn of the monov between Anhmy and herself was 'another, question. Mr. Meredith laid sfernss on "tli6 faet tliat the furnituro had been DUrohasctl for £19/ Tliere was a conflict «rf evicWee as to whether the woman had been drinking, but shohndHot been nMe to make a good barpm. Mr. Flocktmi refused to deal with Aubro-y, and sold the goods, and had probably made a i>rofit.-. Aubrey mado a rebate on the judgment, and there was uo evidence that Flockton lost anything. , .After a retirement 'of. three-quarters of fln, hour the .jury returned with a verdict of not guilty. ' A UNION'S FUNOS. QUESTION OF CONTROL. EXECUTIVE OH TRUSTEES. ! An originating 'summons was heard at .tiie Supreme Court.on Saturday, before His Honour thp Chief .Justice (Sir ■Robert Stout) to decide wliethef the executive officers or the trustees aro entitled to sign tho cheques of the Wellington Wharf Labourers' Industrial Union of Workers. Tlie parties were: Wellington Wharf Labourers' 'Industrial Union of Workers,'; plaintiffs, and theBank of New Zealand; -J. W. Watlgli, wharf labourer, (on, , behalf of .himself nnd other members of the-.union), and Jqlin-Pearee Luke,'John,Guthrie Wood Aitken;. and Wiltiain Oliver Long,. trustecs, of the union, defendants. . Plaintiffs were represented 6y Ut.TH. F- ,Von Haast; Mr, JP. J. O'Regan appeared for J-. Goodall, one of the defendant members of the union, Mr. A. W. Blair for'P. C.'Qreeii, another defendant member, and Mr. AV. J. Sim for the Bank of New Zealand:

Mr. Von Haast stated that Mr. Luke (representing the trustees) was prepared to'.consent.'to .-the judgment af tho Court,'.and Mr.:.Sim stated, the Bank of New Zealand was also prepared to consent to the- judgment. ' Mr. Von Haast said that the summons had been, brought, to. obtain an .interpretation of : the . rules :of: .the union. of which no one hold a very higli opinion., To interpret the rules tho provisions of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1908, had. to bo considered. Section 5, Sub-sectta 3, of tho Act provided for a rule enabling a committee- of management, the secretary, and .the officers', , to control the funds, arid .'trustees . : (if it was. thought fit thatsuch trustees .should be appointed), but it. was-not necessary for the union-to have trustees. Section f>, Sub-section (c), Clause 6, provided that there must be a rule dealing with the control of the property, tho investment of hinds, and the periodical-audit-of ;;ceountfl. Interpretation of fluleg. Counsel submitted that the interpretation must be collected from the rules as a whole, so ■ that the business of the union could bo carried on. Rule 10 stated that tho uniou was governed by the executive, which had full powers to decide in which -bank the money should be deposited, and how the account should ho operated on. Rule 11 gave the president authority to counter-1 sign nil cheques and negotiable instruments, and Rule 13 authorised tile secretary to take money for the union, pay it .into a'bank, slid sign all cheques, Rule 18'ffa»-to provids for £h> appoint

nieiit of trustees to look after invest' ments sot- aside for sj.ioeifie purposes, iiot.coflcunii'd with the miM«*it account'. Section (a) of the nile was to the elfcct tlnit the union should say what moneys ivere to' bo invested, and where; Section (l>) giive it power for such moneys to bo placed Sit tlie names of tjio trustees, and Section (c) provided for tho union to specify what payments were to he made out of investments, tho trustees to make- payments accordingly. It was dear that the object in framing tho rules was to leave ordinary payments m the hands, of the. .union, and it was only when the union decided to sot- aside in-oncy for spetilic purposes that the trustees had'to bo calfed on'. Mr.. Blair. contended that'the first question to be decided was as to the persons by whom, and the manlier in which, the funds of the'bank could be operated; and, secondly« the natnro of the control tho trustees exercised over tho funds of the union. The bank had been, included in the action for til* purpose of obtaining the assistance of the Court in the nature of directions. Counsel contended that'tho" ward "property" in the rules of the union embraced the whole of the funds, including subscript tions, and he,thought that the trustees were .tho .proper persons to dratt-the funds froni the basils. He submitted that Rule 10 did not' give the executive coatrol of the funds. Tho requisitionefs considered they ehould have a trustee to .whom they could. look to see that there' wasmo misapplication of fundsnet wilful misapplication, but an ultra vires transaction. ■, The Chief Justice said that to hold that tho trustees only had'the to sijjn cheques .would nican that the trustees muss, also have control of the union, ■ '• . Union Should jpass Accounts. : Mr. Blair.<:ontended'that directly the m&noy was placed.in the bank by the secretary bis authority became subject to the control of tho'trustees, and before the executivemade any expenditure they should submit their accounts to the -union. The old union always lield "meetings <mce a fortnight to pass accounts. "■.'.- Ishe1 s he Chief Justice' pointed out that Me 21 gave power to.alter the rate's,. and Mr. Blair admitted that they could vary the rules, tot they could- not get a meeting. * ...... 'flie Chief . Justice said that the remedy was to get a new rule, the Union was in possession, The rule dealins with s.iinnagen.ient w«s as wide as 1 possible.. The government of the union was vested ia the executive. ■ , Mi\ Blair pointed .out that a meeting bad licon called, and a sub-cotnmit* i .tee appointed to reorganise the rules, but the -executive refused to recognise that resolution. [ Mr. O'Begau addressed the Court, and pointed out that under Section sof; I tlie Arbitration aiid Conciliation A.ct i provision was made for the appointtnciii of trustees only if it was thought fit, ■ (jut he.'contended that once t those trustees v.'eto appointed' they must liot • tic? regarded as m'ero figureheads. The rules were badly drawn up, and needed retaining; bat the union would net call a meeting for that purpose. The executive now found that two trustees had power te sign all cheques, and sought to amend the rule by resolution, ft method which,'. he contended, was not legitimate under the Arbitration Act. Sir, Sim pointed.out that the brink's ' position had arisen out of llie araWciiity of the rulps; and he asked that the I bank's costs should be paid. '■' ■ Judgment was deferred, His Honour stating that lie hoped to give his decision in a day ar two,