ORDERED TO WORK FOR FREEZING COMPANY

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 190, 10 May 1944, Page 4

ORDERED TO WORK FOR FREEZING COMPANY

Manpower Direction Of Pianist Dominion Special Service. AUCKLAND, May 9. On a charge of failing to comply with a direction of the district manpower officer, in spitje of tire fact that he was recently found guilty on an identical charge, Leonard Charles Hawk-ins, musician, aged 29, appeared before Mr. J. Morling, S.M. He was fined £lO. Mr. I. F. Kronfeld, representing the manpower officer, said that Hawjtins was originally directed to work with the Westfield Freezing Company, Limited, as a labourer, on November 3, 1943. He was given employment on the cooling floor, which was work performed by schoolboys during their holidays. He did not start fill February 15, 1944, af[cr a prosecution against him had been, lodged. He was fined £5 on March 17. After one day’s work, following numerous warnings, he failed to return for two months. From tb“ date of direction till the beginning of the week he worked a total of four whole days and three half-days at Westfield. Hawkins had been at work since May 2. He posted a medical certificate to the company, dated April 20, which stated that he was confined to bed suffering from gastro-enteritis. An officer of the National Service Department had learned from inquiries that from August, 1943, till the time of the second prosecution, defendant had been employed continuously as a pianist at the Troeadero Supper Lounge. Mr. Kronfeld continued. He was paid £2/2/- a night, working from 7 p.m. to 1 a.m. on weekdays and till midnight on Saturdays. A considerable amount of time was taken up with rehearsals for this work and for radii* and other contracts. His gross earnings at the Troeadero from August to April were £451/10/-. Mr. Kronfeld emphasized that, though a doctor had certified on April 20 that defendant was confined to bed, he had not missed a single night at the Troeadero during April. . In entering a plea of guilty, defendant s counsel said that defendant, following his previous conviction, and following the dismissal by the manpower committee of an appeal l>y his wife, appeared to have formed the opinion that he was being hounded by the manpower authorities. However, said counsel, the action of the manpower officer had terminated employment which was worth £6OO a year to defendant, and also several radio contracts. He would have to go to Westfield to make a living.. Counsel said that defendant had formerly been at Westfield for five months, volunteering for the work when be was released from the Army. “This man has been extremely stubborn.’’ said the magistrate, in imposing the fine. “It is his duty, in view of the exigencies of the times, to go whore the manpower officer says.” The magistrate issued a warning that any future penalty against defendant for,a manpower offence would not be a monetary penalty.