CHARGES DISMISSED

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 229, 24 June 1944, Page 8

CHARGES DISMISSED

Case Against Waterside Workers’ President ALLEGED INCITING TO STRIKE . (By Telegraph.—Press Association ) AUCKLAND, June 23. The hearing of two charges against the president of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union. Harold Barnes, of inciting waterside workers on two different ships at Auckland to be or to continue to be parties, to a strike was concluded before Mr. J. 11. Luxford.* S.M., today. The prosecution was brought by the Labour Department, for which Mr. Meredith appeared. Mr. Fawcett represented defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Cross-examined by Mr. Meredith, defendant said the union had never been agreeable to the employment of nonunionists where unionists could be employed. Counsel: Do you think yon have equal authority with the Controller. Mr. W. J. Cutherbert, as to who shall work and who shall not? ' , Defendant: Only so far as the men s rights under the commission’s order are concerned. The magistrate: You are telling me that your action did not incite a strike but actually limited the strike. Defendant: Yes. I definitely say that. Evidence was given by Frank Jackison, bureau officer, for the union, that he and other executive officers agreed on May 20 that if they did not take action the men would. It was decided to instruct defendant to stop the work at 10 o’clock if non-unionists were not replaced. If this had not been done, witness said, the trouble would have extended to every ship i i harbour. A very unfair "attack had been made on Mr. James Roberts during the hearing of the evidence, said Mr. Meredith at the conclusion of the case for the defence. He understood from the defence that it was inferred that Mr. Roberts was a party to the prosecution of defendant. Mr. Roberts had asked him to say that at the time these proceedings were being considered he was awav from his position on account of his wife’s illness and subsequent death. In criminal proceedings the Court was very lon th to curtail the defence in any wav. said Mr. Luxford. This matter had concerned him often, particularly where the person named was not a witness. When it was introduced in this case it had relevance, but on the evidence produced before the Court he could say there was ->o iustifiention for saying thnt this wns anything other than a prosecution brought in a normal way for a breach of the law. In dismissing hoth charges against defendant. Mr. Luxford said he had no doubt that the words used by defendant could have been taken ns inciting a strike, but he had concluded that the men had already decided to ston work and he was satisfied defendant’s intention was only to limit *'■ ■ strike. A third charge against defendant was dismissed yesterday. A demonstration of applause from about 50 men in the public section of the Court which greeted the magistrate’s decision was suppressed.