THE BASIC WAGE.

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19883, 12 May 1936, Page 8

THE BASIC WAGE.

RATES IN AUSTRALIA. GROWTH OF GLASS MASONRY. ‘ (BY Talee’l’anh.—Press Association.) AUCKLAND. Tuesday. ‘ “ ‘The basic wage in Australia is gen—erally lower than in New Zealand today." said Mr \\'. X. Kerns. New Zealand manager of the Australian Glass Company, who has returned from a visit to Australia. l He added that the basic wage ranged from £3 65 in Adelaide for a 48-hour week to £3 95 in Melbourne. At Penrose, Auckland, higher wages in comparison were being paid by his company for a 44—hour week. Australian manu-‘ facturers were keenly desirous of in-‘ creasing their sales in New Zealand and he held that New Zealand industries would have to be protected against this I'onipEEtition, otherwise they would suffer. Some big English and American companies were to—day operating their own works in Australia. l An All-Glass Building. 1 Glass masonry was beginning to at-‘ tract much attention in Australia and Sydney would soon have an all-glass building. Water-clear glass blocks would be used and would admit into the buildings an abundant tlow of soft, diffused daylight. They were transluc—ent but not transparent, impervious to moisture. resistant to fire, and had enormous structural strength. ALLEGED LIBEL —-——.——- ACTION FOR DAMAGES. SLANDER ALSO ALLEGED. (By Telegrapii.—l'ress Association.) \VELLIXUTON. MondayA claim is proceeding: in the Supreme Court in which “950 dam—ages for alleged libel and £750 daniages for alleged slander are sought by Joseph Heinrich ileimann, merchant. of \\'elllngton‘ against Franz .\leissner. of Haveluck .\‘orth, orehardist. Plaintiff alleges that defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published a letter addressed to Max l-lei—-niann in whirh were words. plaintiff alleged, that meant that he had committed a criminal offence in New Zealand and that he could not come to New Zaaland without being arrested. He also alleged that defendant. in writing and publishing the letter, was actuated by malice. The slander claim was based on an alleged statement of defendant to one Pickling. that plaintiff had smuggled dianmnds and could not wine to New Antiland. “ No case of Slander." Counsel for the defence submitted that .\leissner's letter was privileged and that there was no proof of malice. There was, he said. no evidence to support the action for slander. The Judge found that there was no case of slander to so beiore a Jury and nonsuited plaintiff. lie found that the fact that plaintiff had ‘bern stated to be liable to arrest did not imply the I‘UiliiillS>lDll of a criminal ot‘fent'c. liis llonour derided that the jury should hear evident-t- on the remit of libel. and after defendant had given some of his evidence the case \\'fl:- adjourned until to-morrow morn—inst. l l VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. t l. ___. ‘ \i’ly ‘l‘i‘logrdph.il'ress .\ssurlatlon.) ' \\'l£l.i.t.\'G’l‘o.\', ’l‘ursduy. l 'l‘lit» notion for nlh'geil libel of ‘Jusviili llt-rmanu v. l"r.tu/. .\lvissunr ‘l'Hlil'll lti'tlti} in ii \i'i'tiii‘l for the de:lt'lllliiili. . ‘l'.l.- jndur mid hw .igrerd with the :iinilii; oi the jury