WHARF MORALS.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 October 1920, Page 5

WHARF MORALS.

POETRY READ IN COURT. UNUSUAL LIBEL ACTION. .WATERSIDERS SEEK DAMAGES. By Itlegrapli.—Press Association, Auckland, Oct. 2. Further evidence was given before Mr, Justice Salmond and a jury at the Supreme Court to-day, in the action by Henry Green and John Meikle (Mr. Fleming), wharf laborers, Auckland, against the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Federation, James Roberts (general secretary), and the Maori land Worker Printing and Publishing Company, Wellington (Sir John Findlay, K.C., and Mr. Cahill). Each plaintiff claims £IOOO for alleged libel, said to be contained in a report of the federation's conference proceedings at Napier in December last. It was stated that a further claim of £IOOO eacli wa9 being made by the plaintiffs in respect of publications in the New Zealand Transport Worker. Their total claims thus amounted to £4OOO, but the other actions will not be heard before the next sitting. There were several breezy passages during the cross-examination of the plaintiff Green. "I will answer no more questions from Sir John unless he gives me dates," he declared, after denying that at a Disputes Committee meeting he had said: "I do not want any more employers' b tricks here." His Honor said lie was not investigating Green's past life. Sir John Findlay said he was going to show that Green's own conduct accounted for other wateraiders refusing to work with him. His Honor pointed out that there was no claim By Green for his having been deprived of his occupation, but the claim was for general damages for alleged libel. A further exchange of remarks followed between the Judge, counsel, and witness over the lengthy answers given. Gilbert Sanford, a member of the firm of Sanfords', Ltd., 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. LABOR AT 77. Other evidence was given by several employers that Green was dismissed from various jobs because they feared his engagement would cause trouble among his 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 he was 77 years of age. In 1887 he was convicted on perjured evidence and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for sheep-stealing, which he "served. On being released he agitated for 21 years before he got redress. In 1908 the Meikle Acqipital Act wa3 passed, reversing the judgment and expunging and deleting all the court and prison records relating to witness. Meikle said he had seen 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 cotamerce chamber heads, And they criticise their 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 same paper Green and witness were indicated as startem in the Damage Stakes, Green being "Fisher Boy" by "Puffed Neck," and witness "Pet Lamb" by "Gab." Tiie notes continued: "Fisher Boy got the lead at the start, followed closely by Pet Lamb, who, though aged, seemed to regain some of his former style." "QUARRELSOME ELEMENT." His Honor refused to allow Sir John Findlay to cross-examine witness as to Character, except in respect of the portion upon which he had been attacked. The Judge said the case was similar to that, ssy, of a doctor, who sued for damages for alleged libel respect of his professional competency. It would not be competent to cross-examine the doctor a 9. to whether 20 years ago he had run away with another man's wife. Mr. Fleming then closed the case for plairftiffs. Sir John Findlay, addressing the jury, said that the legal aid levy was not for the purpose of carrying on an industrial war, or any of the acknowledged militant objectives of unionism, but was simply intended for providing adequate legal assistance to members of a union of their dependents in compensation claims. It was paid without compulsion everywhere, but plaintiffs refused to subscribe. That refusal was just the kind of thing, without more, to incense their fellow members against the two plaintiflV. Although Mr. Poynton, S.M., had awarded them £5 each against the Auckland Union, he liad used such words as "pig-headedness" and "obstinacy" in referring to Grien and Meikle. Counsel said it was an insult to the word to 1 say that the plaintiffs were acting on principle. He proposed to call evidence showing that they had been the outstanding quarrelsome element on the waterfront, and that they had been abusive. They had brought the trouble on themselves _ What wonder if the patience of their fellow-workers 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. A MATTER OF MORALS. James Roberts, secretary of the defendant Federation, cross-examined by Mr. Fleming, said he was not aware that Demosthenes and Cicero had not been condemned for making long speeches, in which they usually made attacks on people. He never had time to read them.. (Laughter.) Counsel: Are long-winded speeches and attacks on people grievous fault? Witness: Yes, they are waste of time. . Counsel: At the time Green left Wellington, was not the water-front a hunting-ground of thieves'! Witness: No, I resent the imputation. Counsel: Since when haß Wellington become so punctilious in regard to morals, and enforced certaisi rulek of conduct on members? Witness: We do not keep statistical! returns. ' I Couosejh It a jgu do got keifi;