TELEGRAMS.

Hokitika Guardian, 30 April 1920, Page 4

TELEGRAMS.

fPEB PRESS ASSOCIATION.—COPYRIGHT.;

BOARD OF TRAI)K ORDER. WELLINGTON. April 29. The Board of Trade ,has instructed the anti-profiteering tribunals in tfie main centres to take steps to inform traders during the strike that they will consider any increase in prices over those ruling on 26th inst, without the consent of the Board or tribunal as an infringement of the Board of Trade Act. Where the price is raised without consent of the Board, prosecutions will follow. The Board recognises that during the crisis extra charges for transport may be made and that these must be borne by the consumers. The Board " ill, in such cases, consent to increases .commensurate with the increased cost of transport. The suggestion is also made joy the Board that shortages rpay necessitate some system of rationing.

THE ROYAL TRAIN. WELLINGTON, April 29. The Assistant-General Manager states the Royal train will not come to Wellington, the original tour being abandoned, but it is undecided whether the train will return to Auckland.

PICKETING STATIONS NAP TER, April 29. The local branch of the A.S.R.S. came out this 'morning. A mass meeting of members at eight o’clock unanimously c.eeided to support the Executive’s decision. Pickets were selected from the more staid section of the men, the station yards and workshops being watched. The pickets’ instructions are to use nothing but persuasion in stopping any would be strike breakers.

SLANDER. SUIT SETTLED. WELLINGTON, April 29. At the Magistrate’s Court to-day, Robert Semple (late member for Wellington South), sought to recover £SO damages from Sydney John Saps ford for slander, alleged to be spoken by defendant to Walter Hadley in December last. It was alleged that Sapsford had stated before the Parliamentary election that Seiriplc had kept a house of illl'ame under a license in Brisbane, and liiid asked whether Hadley would vote for such a man. Mr O’Leary appeared for defendant, and on liis behalf tendered an unreserved apology to Mr Semple. He said that the statement bad been made during the beat of an argument without any thought of the seriousness of the allegation. Defendant admitted frankly that there was no justification for such a statement. Mr Semple had -accepted the apology and agreed to take a comparatively small sum, merely sufficient to cover expenses. Mr O’ltegan, counsel for Mr Semple, accepted the apology, and said that he was quite prepared to believe that defendant was not the originator of the statement. Mr Riddell, S.M., agreed to the closing of the matter.