ALLEGED CONTEMPT OF COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXVII, Issue 9110, 4 October 1917, Page 4

ALLEGED CONTEMPT OF COURT.

WELLINGTON, Oct. 3. Before the formal resumption of the hearing of the cha ; rge against W. T. Young, secretary' of tne Seamen's Federation, of having incited a sedi,tious strike, Young drew the attention of the Magistrate, to a letter to the union from- the Prime Minister, in' the course of which the writer said the ■, seamen had - committed 'a breach' of the 1 strike provisions .of the'-Industrial, Conciliation, and Arbitration Act. That letter, Young said, had been published in all the papers, and in his opinion it constituted comment.oh' the case before the Court, which amounted to contempt of Court. He considered the Prime Minister ,had exceeded his functions. \

The Magistrate said that; the Court had no power to deal with contempt of court committed outside its walls. In any case, the letter would have no effect on him personaHy. He had always preserved his independence. The hearing of the charge against Young of having incited a seditious strike was continued to-day. After a number of witnesses for the prosecution had been heard, defendant said he wished to call the Hon. G. W. Russell. Minister of Marine, and the Court- adjourned for the Minister/ to be communicated with. Mr Russell failed to appear, and.his Worship said he could not'compel him to, as he was free from a. judicial process, and, further, as ( a Minister of the Crown, he opuld refuse to give official information.

Defendant, addressing the Court, said it would be contended that no strike existed, and if a breach of the War Regulations had been committed it was a seditious lock-out. Until June" last two men in a watch were worked, .but later one man only was put on watch. From June 1. to the time the trouble occurred, the union was pestered with threats, and it was only by the exercise of, tact that trouble, was stared off. The Crown had, failed to prove" that'the men had discontinued• their employment/ Asa practical. seaman, he said no ship w«s' safe at sea -with' - only ■ one man on watch.- Before leaving for Auckland, just prior to the trouble, he had given Howell a document to communicate to the men on the ships, and it seemed that some of them had Tinderstood it. The union had never considered the question of two men in a watch. As to the evidence,. adduced ,by the Crown to the effect t that he declined to refer the matters in dispute to > the Arbitration Court, he <said what he' declined to do was to go to the Court for an interpretation. What the union intended to do was -to • proceed against the shipowners, for, a .breach of agreement so as to get' .an order of the Court. In placing matters before the Minister of .Marine, on March 29, he incidentally remarked that Some vessels were sailing with one man in the deck watch, and some of the vessels were licensed to carry passengers. The Minister expressed' surprise, and said he -would cause enquiries to be made with a. view • to ejecting a remedy. That was what he wanted to ask the Minister about if the Minis-* ter had "come tp Court. . Defendant, called"■"* George Thomas Nation, a member of the executive,of the union, who said the question' of the number <tf .men in a watch had never been raised at .the.session of the Executive Council- -in- "August. The men came out on" their own account, and the union had not considered the matter since the trouble arose. v

Dofrndaht* entered the witness-box and said he wished to ,-repeat his evidence in Howell'a case. "

Cross-examined by Mr Macaspey. hesaid that while in Auckland he did not endeavour to s;et the men in the coastal boats there to come out.

Judgment will be given to-morrow