N.Z. STATUE LAW.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10044, 14 May 1910, Page 5

N.Z. STATUE LAW.

DISREGARDED AND OVERRIDDEN. REMARKABLE CASE AT ASHBURTON. STRONG REMARKS BY MAGISTRATE.! By Telegraph—Press Association. ASHBURTON, May 13. At the Ashburton Magistrate's Court on February 4th, the Inspector of Awards proceed against a local manufacturer on a claim for £lO as penalty for failing to pay wages of an employee weekly, as provided by Section 4 of the Canterbury Furniture Award. Mr G. Day, S.M.. then dismissed the case on the grounds that the penalty fixed by the Award was in excess of that fixed by the Wages Protection Act. The Inspector afterwards applied to the Supreme uourt for and was granted a writ of mandamus directing the Magistrate to hear and determine the case, which accordingly came up for hearing again to-day. The defendant admitted the charge.

Mr Day, S. M. in entering up judgment for the plaintiff Inspector of Awards for 20s, said he wished to make a statement regarding his attitude in the case, of which the following if a summary. "When this esse was before me on a previous occasion I dismissed it, stating that in my opinion it should have been brought under Section 3 of the Wages Protection and Contiactors Liens Act j of 1908, for breach of which the j defendant would have been liable to a fine not exceeding £SO The penalty fixed by the Arbitration Court under thy Award in the matter is a sum not exceeding £IOO. The"groun?s on which I dismissed the casa was that in my opinion, where the legislature by statute had fixed the penalty for any offence, Arbitration could not impose a greater one. The plaintiff has obtained a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court, ordering me to hear \ and determine the case, which it is my duty to obey. It seems to me, however, than an extraordinary position has arisen—that a Oourt creation of the legislature should have the power to say that the expressed will of the people as embodied in the statute pas>ei by their representatives was i.ot tiifficitnt, and that lhCorrt should have the power to impose penalties greater than was provided by statute. If the Co'irt in this particular case can order the inttiction of a heavier penalty thrn provided by the Wages Protection and Contractors Liens Act of 1908 thereis no reason why the Court should be bound by the provisions of any statute relating lo industrial matters. From the newspapers reports of the motion for mandamus it would appear that the defendant was not represented, so that there was only an ex j parts statement. This is to be regretted, as, although the issue in the case is comparatively small, yet the principals involved is very great and far reaching. I make these remarks with all due deference to the ruling of the Suprema Court, and solely with a view of giving prominence to the matter, as I cannot conceive that it was eyer toe intention 6f the legislature to creute a Court with powers to disregard or override the statute law.