WATERSIDERS AT LAW

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 7, 4 October 1920, Page 6

WATERSIDERS AT LAW

CLAIM AGAINST FEDERATION

1 ALLEGATIONS OF LIBEL

[ By Telegraph—Prws Association.

. ' Auckland, October 2. • 'further evidence was given before Mr. Justice Salmond and a jury at the Su- ; premo. Court to-day in the action by Ifenry Green and John Meiklo (Mr. Fleming), wharf labourers, Auokland, djjninst •. the Now Zealand Waterside' A workers' Federation, James lioberts (general secretary), and the "Maoriland Worker" Printing; and Publishing Comi jinny,ellingfon (Sir , John Pindlay,f K.C., and Mr. Cahill). Each plaintiff : claims <61000 from the _ defendants for ki . alleged libel, said to lie contained in j''the report of the Federation Conference l proceedings at Napier in December last. ' It was stated that a further claim of ■ 'A'looo each was being made by the plaintiffs in respect of publications in the "New Zealand Transport Worker," their s> .total claims thus amounting to .£4OOO, but the other actions would not be hoard beforo next sittings. There were several "breezy" passages fs during the cross-examination of the s. 'fjlaiiitiff Green. "I will answer 110 more questions, from Sir John unless he gives '..'me dates." ho declared, after denying that at a ; Disputes Committeo meeting (:•' •• he had said : Ido not want any more i employers' — tricks here." His Honour eaid lie was not investigating Green's past life. . ' t Sir John Findlay said.he "was going ■: ' to show that Green's own conduct accounted for other watersiders refusing to i." ■ ."work with him. - ,

His Honour pointed cut that there was' no. claim by Green for hia having been deprived of his occupation, but the claim was for general damages for alleged libel. A further exchange of remarks followed between Judge, counsel, and witness. Gilbert Sanford, member of Sanforda, Limited, stated that he had dispensed ■with Green's services because he had heard there was going to be trouble in the cleaning shed. He had "sacked Green, for that reason. Other evidence was given by several employers that Green'was dismissed from various jobs because they feared his en.gagement would cause trouble among lus fellow-workers.. John Meikle, the other plaintiff, corroborated Green's evidence in regard to the legal aid levy of Is. which had caused the trouble. He stated |that •he was -77 yeare of age. In 1887 he was convicted on perjured- evidence and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for _ sheep 'stealing, which he 6erved. On being released,. he agitated for 21 yeare boforo he got redress. In 1908 the Meikle Acquittal Act; was passed, reversing the judgment, and expunging and deleting all O&urt and prison records relating to witness. ■ Meikle said he had seen i a poem about himself and Green which appeared in the "New Zealand Transport ■Worker," entitled, "As We See' Them." One verse of which read as follows:— "They, cry aloud for sympathy from the Commerce Chamber heads,. and they criticise tjieii- Union as a nursery for Feds. • How can the, working class advance with such slimy renegade, whose principle is damages through the six-and- ' eight brigade." In another issue of the came paper Green and witness were indicated as starters in the "Damage Stakes," Green being "Flshor Boy," by "Puffed Neck," and witness "Pet Lamb,' by "Gab." The notes continued: "Fisher Boy got the lead: at- the start, followed closely by Pet Lamb, who, though aged, eeeme'd to regain some of his former style." _ His Honour refused to allow Sir John Findlay to cross-examine the witness as to character, except in respect of a portion upon •• which he had been attacked. The" Judge said that tho.case was similar to that, say, of a doctor, who sued for damages for.alleged libel in respect o? his. professional competency. It -would not be'competent to cress-examine, the doctor as to whether twenty years ago he had run away with another man's wife. ' "■ Mr. Fleming then closed tho case for the plaintiffs. The Legal-Aid Levy. f Sir John Findlay, addressing theliury, laid that the legal-aid_ levy was not for the purpose of carrying on industrial .war, or any .of the acknowledged militant objectives of unionism, but was simply intended for providing adequate legal assistance to members of the union, or their dependants, in compensation claims. It was paid without .compulsion everywhere,- but plaintiffs refused to subscribe. That refusal -was just the kind of thing to incense their fellow-members against the two plaintiffs. Although Mr. Poynton, S.M., had awarded them each .£5 damages against the Auckland Union he "had used such words as "pigheadedness" and "obstinacy." In referring to Green and Meikle counsel said it was an insult to tho word to say that plaintiffs were acting on principle. He proposed to call evidence showing that thev had been the outstanding, quarrelsome element on the waterfront, and that they., had been abusive. They had brought trouble on themselves..' What wonder if the patience.of their fellow- 1 iworkens -became exhausted? The conduct. particularly of Green, was bringing the whole of the' union into disrepute in the city,' " One of the employers' representatives on the Disputes Committee -had refused to sit with him, and, consequently, for eight months there -was, chaos because the committee could not act. •

James Boberts, secretary of the defendant Federation, said ho had been associ- . nte.l with unionism for twenty-five years. He .could not 6ay that the plaintiffs were good unionists. When Green was at Wellington ho invariably tried to undermine tho authority of the local organisation. He mado long-winded speeches, visually attacking somebody. Wellington " members refused to work with Green because he had threatened to report a man who left a ship to see a child who had been injured. Personally, he considered Green was undesirable. Ho knew that . Green was fined £5 for fighting, in Auckland.' Green: The man I fought was a shirker, and the union paid the fine. His Honour: That ought to be a re- ■ commendation. , • Witness said thera was high feeling against both plaintiffs. ' Cross-examined by Mr. Fleming, Mr. Eoberts t said lie' was not aware that Demosthenes and .Cicero had not been condemned for making long speeches in which they usually mado attacks on He never • had time to read them (Laughter.) Counsel: Are long-winded speeches and attacks on peoplo a grievous fault? .Witness: Yes;- they are a waste' of time. I The Wellington Waterfront, Counsel: At w the time Green left Wellington, was not tho Wellington water-' front the hunting-ground of thieves? Witness: No; I resent tho imputation. Counsel: Since when has Wellington become so punctilious in regard to morals, and enforced certain rules of 1 conduct on members? ' Witness: Wo do not keep statistical returns. Counsel: It is a pity you don't keep a statistical return of Convicted'thieves. < H's Honour: I cannot go into the moral tono of the watersidsrs. Witness said Green tried to appear as a good man to tho "boss," so as to secure more work. His Honour: Ho does not seem to have been yery popular with the employers' representatives on the Disputes Committee. Tho case was adjourned.