LAW INFRINGED.

Hokitika Guardian, 29 March 1922, Page 1

LAW INFRINGED.

■WELLINGTON, March 27. At the hearing of the waterside workers’ c ase by the Arbitration Court to-day, objection was taken by Mr Wg! .Smith, employers’ representative, to a letter by Mr Laurenson, assistant secretary of,the Union, traversing the case before the Court. In reply, it was contended that statements 'had appeared. on the other side agd th e case t had been commented on freely by the Press. The, Court was asked to make a pronouncement regarding the publication of matter concerning a case in dispute. After a brief consultation with his colleagues, Mr Justice Fraz e r said that at the present stage the Court did not want to express any opinion on the motives which might have influenced Mr Laurenson in the correspondence in the Press on the qustion of waterside work. The matter might in its origin have cropped up quite innocently, and the statements made without any intention of influencing the Court in any way. The case was now before the Court. It was a matter of quite general knowledge that it was for the Court to deal with the matter and to take charge of all the considerations raised by the parties. The law as to comment, on matters sub judiee was applicable in the Arbitration Court in any dispute, just as it applied to any action in any other Court. No doubt in matters of public and general interest the rule as to comment on matters sub judiee might be lost sight of. As to the matters now brought forward, the Court was of opinion it was not necessary "to take steps to punish anybody for anything that had been done. Nowthat the matter had been brought forward, everybody ooncerned would be careful to see that no public comment was made on any matters before the Court. His Honour said the Court knew it was difficult to draw the line sometimes when a matter was of public and general interest as to what might he discussed and what might not be discussed. They hoped that the good sense of the friends of both parties would be sufficient to enable them to agree on a danger-line ans to confine their comment to matters quite properly the subject of comment. Apart from the present dispute, he hope*} it would not be necessary to refer to the matter again. The Court ait the sametime did not think that in the present instance any of the correspondents had a n y intention of deliberately prejudicing the mindß of the Court, or of influencing the Court at all. “As a matter of fact,” said his Honour, “T just skimmed through the letters as one skims through the ordinary correspondence in newspapers.” -