WHARF UNION SUED

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2437, 16 April 1915, Page 3

WHARF UNION SUED

ECHO OF PAST TROUBLES. The sequel to a case which'- caused considerable interest at the time, that in which Thomas Joseph Ladd (acting for the Wellington Wharf Labourers' Union) laid ten informations, against Edwin John Jones (ex-secretary of the unioii) for «alleged misappropriation of the union's funds, was heard in the Magistrate's Court-yesterday in a civil action in which Ladd sued the Wharf Labourer's' Union for £10 10s. , ■ It was alleged by plaintiff that as secretary of the defendant union he had laid the tell informations for the union against Jones; that these informations were dismissed; and that he '(plaintiff) had been ordered to pay Jones £1 Is., costs on each of the ten informations. Plaintiff had paid the £10 10s., but although he bad applied several times to the union for reimbursement of the amount, he had been refused. £10 10s. was claimed accordingly. I Mr. D. R. Hoggard appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. P. J. O'llegan for defendant union.

; In his evidence plaintiff said that the executive of the nnion had instructed him to lay the informations against Jones, find .this ha did through the union's solicitor, Mr. H. F. O'Leary. Mr. O'Regan. for the defence', said that plaintiff should be nonsuited, on the ground that there was no authority to bub the union under its own name, it should really bo,sued through its officers.

The Magistrate remarked that he could not quite agree with counsel, but that he would look into the point raised. • Archibald Black .said that he recollected a motion which was passed ordering the prosecution of Jones, while witness had pointed out to Ladd that he ha<l acted at variance with the resolution in laying the information instead of Mr. Radcliffe (the union president). George Bruce, secretary of the union; said that the only expenditure authorised by the union was the payment cf Mr., O'Leary,' counsel for the union. Mr. O'Leary had had to pay Sir John Findlay £31, as' .'tlio union had been informed that if this were not paid by them Mr. O'Leary would have to pay it out of his own pocket. Mr. Haggard remarked that apparently, although the union did not want to see Mr. O'Leary out of pocket, it did not mind seeing Mr. Ladd a loser. After hearing further legal argument the Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs £2 17s.