WOOLLEN MILL STRIKE

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2838, 1 August 1916, Page 9

WOOLLEN MILL STRIKE

UNION SECRETARY PROCEEDED AGAINST. An interesting case in connection with the recent Petone 'Woollen Mills strike was partly heard yesterday, when the Inspector of Awards (Mr. H. B. Moston) proceeded against Edward Kennedy, secretary of the Petone Woollen Mills Industrial Tinion of Workers to regover the sura of ,£2OO for an alleged breach of Section (i of the Industrial, Conciliation, and Arbitration Amendment Act, 4908. The statement of claim alleged that defendant during the months of February and March, 1916, did aid an unlawful strilte of the workers employed by the Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Co. 1 , Ltd., while tho said workers were lwunil at the commencement of tho strike by an award of the Court of Arbitration. Mr. W, G. Kiddell was on Hie bench. Mr. P. S. K. Macassev, of the Crown Law Office, conducted the case nn behalf of the Inspector of Awards, and Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared on behalf of tho defendant.' Before evidence was taken. Mr. Wilford raised the riuestion of the Court's jurisdiction in the case. He submitted that Kennedy was a member of the Tinion which had already been fined .£SO by tho Court for striking. Therefore, counsel contended, on account of that judgment, Kennedy being a member of the union, proceedings could not be taken against him as an individual. Mr. Macassey argued that the case was a civil one, and not a criminal proceeding. The. union was a senarate and distinct body, and its conviction under Sub-section i of Section S of +1"> Industrial, Conciliation anfl Arbitration Amendment Aft. 190$. did not affect defendant's liability. The latter was a member of the union, but not a worker at the factory. After further leual argument had been heard. His Worship said that he would hear the firi"i4 evidence of Mr. Mostnn and Mr. A. E. T>onne. secretaTv of tho Petono Woollen Mills Co., and'he-would th'en adjourn the case to consider the point raised by Mr. Wilford. Subsequently Mr. Wilford mentioned in snonort of his leptil contention that the charge rend that Kennedy hml "nided" the strike. He would like His Wor ship to consider the oiiestions: What was a strike? When does a strike begin? .When does a. strike end? Continuing, eounse 1 contended t.hnt anvthing done by Kennedy prior to the actual date on which the strike occurred had no h"nrinir on the present. case. Tho strika did not exist till the employe* ceased wnrk. and thero was no proof that his client had done anything to aid the strikn after that' date. The -word "did" would hive to be interpreted in n broad sense, otherwise it might well be contended that every nerson who had purchased a ticket for a concert, held it Petone to "aid" Hie strikers was enn»lly liable to prosecntion. Counsel h»ld that tliovo whs no case against his client. Mr. Marnssey. in reply. said that what the defendant had don" before the strike was "aiding" the strike, and what he had done snTwefjuentlv w.kj aiding ttie continuance of the strike. Therefore, Mr Macassey. contended tbat Kennedy ee"ld be .nroee W led airai'Vst for aiding a strike, At th« sta"" the eoce for consideration of the point of jurisdiction. POLICE COURT CAPES. Mr. L. G. Paid, S.M., dealt with the following coses:— Arthur Wilfred Mountfort went on board the Anchor Line's steamer Kairoa at Nelson on Saturday evening and travelled to Wellington without having paid his fare. While on board the steamer ho entered several cabins and "turned i"" to bunks with ?11 his clothes on. He was hauled out on each occasion", and when the vessel arrived here wnt asW«. Mountfort then visited the . Post Office Hotel and went to bed there with all his clothes on 'shortly after S a.m. When interrogated bv the proprietor, he 6aid that lie' had been looking for a "man called Williams." The police were communicated with, and accused was arrested for being an idle and disorderly nerson. After hearing' evidence, His Worship convicted him md ordered him to come un for sentence when called upon Madeline Josephine M'T.aren was charged with the theft, of 43, tho pronertv of E. JV'ordlunt. Evidence went to show that only 30s. had been token, and licensed was ordered to repay that amount. For using obscene language on Kent Ter»ace. Harry Davis was convicted and discharged. . Pichard Jones Vat remanded on bail to appear at Auckland on a charge of the rheft of JVf.'l- 'Is. 3d., tho property of ■Tames K. Fanlkener. A 1 you"'r ni»" 21 vcrrc if ase. named Arthur Mansell, was fined 10s. for having used obscene., language ill Cuba Street. Frederick Gibbs was charged that on or about.'.Time 10 he did steal ,£3O. in money, and a wristlrt watch valued at 10s., the property of Edward Lane, a returned soldier. The evidence wont to show that Lane had been discharged from the forces and had received .£35 as pay. He had met Gibbs and two other men, and they had walked about tho Citv, and finally fiibbs and another man had helped him to his room. Lane had nn i'len t , 'n'- he had seen, someone touching his'clothes, and on making investigations found thnt ,£3O was missing. Tt was alleged that accused was seen in possession of the notes, which were all new ones. Accused reserved his defence, end was committed 1o the Supreme Court for trial. He said that lis would not plead till he bad consulted a solicitor. MAINTENANCE OItDEPS. Tho following maintenance cases were dealt with:— Herbert Edward Garrett was sentenced to 11 days' imprisonment, the warrant to b® suspended if ho pays 17s. per week off arrears amounting to £3 Is.. John O'Neill had allowed arrears to amount to .£lB, and he was ordered to pay off the amount within 14 days and 10s. per week thereafter, otherwise ho will bo sent to prisou for one month. Charles Daniel Hargreaves was ordered to pay XI per week towards tho maintenance of his wife. . An order of 7s. 7d. per week was made against Alliert Hodge for the maintenance of his child.