AFFAIRS AT TONGA.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 146, 20 June 1906, Page 5

AFFAIRS AT TONGA.

KING'S SPEECH IN PARLIAMENT

By the arrival of the steamer Manapouri from the Islands to-day we are placed in possession of the address delivered by King George to the eleventh assembly of the Parliament of Torga on May 18. The address expressed thanks to the Almighty that they were still under the shadow of our dear flag of Tonga, and proceeded: "In our little Government still existing and your chiefs »till well and governing the country and the flag still standing, and =.inee He decreed that Tonga should exist. His glorious name has been our motto and our seal. Therefore, O chiefs and friends, since it is the will of God that I should work in this land, I -will work to the utmost of my ability. It is apparent to you that differences have been, experienced in our journey up to the present. Although I have no great ability, still I speak as Jepthah, 1 put my life in Thy hands.' Above all things, let every one be in loving remembrance, and keep and guard the peace which the Lord has bestowed upon our land. Remember the position we are in is weakness. The saying is, To be weak is to be miserable. . The important thing in this Assembly is to try to equalise all our burdens in Tonga that they may be borne, and that our country may prosper. And also for our relations with foreign Governments, let your sessions be in peace and friendliness. I am also deeply thankful to rejoice exceedingly because the land of our little group of islands, from the north to the south, frem the east to the west, is secure. Not an inch of it has been lost, btit all stands firm. Therefore, Oh chiefs, think of the great struggles of our little group of islands in Polynesia, but they hare been taken possession of because of their conceit and acting like Esau. We are different from the eagle on high striving to own the world that each, may keep their own country, because that is the division of the islands by God. Therefore, act according to the laws already made, and do not seek some other ladder to climb up by." The speech concluded with a reference to the country being free from debt.

ARBITRATION COURT,

(Before Mr Jofttke Chapman and Meemr*. Blxtor *ad Brawn.)

AIJLEG-ED BREACH OF GBOCER'S AWARD.

The further hearing of the charge against W. G. Hutehinsori, grocer, Ka-rangahape-road, or committing a breach of the Industrial Union of Grocers* award, by failing to allow Edward Edwards, a carter, the statutory hall-holi-day, was continued this morning. Mr Hubert Ferguson, Inspector of Factories and Awards, conducted the prosecution, and Mr J. C. Martin appeared for respondent.

Details of the claim have already appeared in our columns.

Edward Edwards, a carter, said he had been employed by Mr Hutehinson for six months. During that time no complaint had been made as to his competence. Mr Hutehinson had satisfied himselt as to the reason, why witness left his last employment.

To Mr Martin: Witness had missed several football matches through being unable to get to the ground in time.

Ernest Eaton, hon. secretary of the Grocers 5 and Milkmen's Football Club, detailed the method of getting player*, to the ground, and instanced the various points en route where the different players were picked up. On no single occasion had the last witness been at the appointed rendezvous in time to be picked up. He had seen Edwards hurrying along on horseback. The custom was to play with fourteen men until Edwards arrived.

A report by Mr Ferguson's assistant was read, stating that "Edward Edwards had on one occasion been working at 3.25 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon." Inspector Ferguson stated that he had cautioned the respondent on several occasions against working his men late. Subsequently he sent his assistant to investigate and report, and in consequence of the report he received the present proceedings were instituted. For the defence Percy Brown deposed that he had done the same round as Edwards, and had with one exception always been in at one o'clock. Corroborative evidence was given by several other witnesses. One" witness stated that on the Wednesday in question Edwards had spent about twentv minutes in a chemist's shop. He had not looked at bis watch, but thought it would be about that time. Mr. Ferguson suggested that as the day was a cold, wet one, and the witness was waiting in the Court for Edwards, the time would naturally seem longer than it really was. Mr. W. G. Hutchinson ..denied tbe statement that he had never found fault with Edwards. He had on one occasion reprimanded him for coming late. The round in question could easily be covered between 8.30 a.m. and one o'clock. Inspector Ferguson then addressed the Court. He reviewed the evidence adduced, and maintained that as Edwards was anxious to get to football, it was improbable that he would loiter on his round. The evidence showed that Edwards had been out in the cart longer than the time allowed, and that therefore a breach of the award had been committed. Mr. Martin did not consider it necessary to address the Court. In summing up, his Honor said the case bad been contested with considerib'.e acuteness on both sides. Tlie in speetor properly regarded it as one of importance. They, however, had to look at it from the point of view of the evidence tendered on both sides. The charge was substantiated of failing to arrange his rounds—which was equivalent to arranging his hours—in a manner that they should be in accordance with clause 4 of the award, which provided that the hours of all persons employed in carting shall be so arranged to enable them to have a statutory half-holiday. The statempnt of the young man was to the effect that he had not got in in time, and that he had a strong incentive in attending a football match. That made a prima facie case, but they could not say that it made the ease entirely free from doubt. They had the evidence of a substantial body of witnesses, who said they could have easily done the round, and that none of the employees other than that particular one. had failed to do their round in time. It was difficult to see on which side the fact lay. When the Court had any doubt the" benefit must be given to the party under prosecution. There did appear to be some doubt as to whether the round could be done in time, but there was the substantial fact that it had been done in time. They could not say that it left them without• doubt that the employer bad also failed to arrange his hours. In those circumstances, they could not find that he was liable to a penalty. All they could do was to deal with the case as a case that was not quite satisfactorily proved, and for the future the inspector would hive to keep the matter under supervision, and satisfy himself as to whether the round was a proper one. So far as that case was concerned, they would dismiss it.