AN INDUSTRIAL CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 135, 9 June 1910, Page 4

AN INDUSTRIAL CASE.

AUCKLAND BUTCHERS' UXMN V. AUCKLAND MEAT CO.

PLAKTIFF NONSUITED. The case in which the Auckland Butchers' Union (Mr. Skelton) proceeded ■against the Auckland Meat Company (Dr. Bamford), on two informations charging them with employing two men two-thirds of their time, as general hands and failing to pay them the minimum rate of wages, was before the Magistrate's Court yesterday, and' after further evidence had 'been taken, Mr. Skelton asked leave to withdraw the case, stating that in a similar case his Worship had decided against another union, and therefore his clients would prefer to obtain the opinion of the Arbitration Court. Mr. Kettle, S.M., withheld decision yesterday, but delivered it as follows this morning:—

"This as an action "brought in this Court under section 14 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1908, to recover a of £5 from the defendant company under cla-use 6, etc., of the Auckland butchers' award, dated 26th June, 1909. After the plaintiff's case was closed, and some evidence for the defendant company had been given; Mr. SkeLton, on behalf of the plaintiff, intimated to the Court that he had been instructed by 'his clients to ask for leave to withdraw the proceedings in order that an action might be commenced in <the Arbitration Court on footh fact and law, to recover a penalty for the alleged breach of .the award. He stated that he had advised his clients that in the event of the judgment of this Court 'being adverse to them on the facts no appeal on the facts would lie from such judgment to.the Arbitration Court, and it was desired to obtain a decision of the Arbitration Court. The Act does not give plaintiffs in actions of this nature the right to discontinue the proceedings' or to elect to take a nonsuit before: judgment. There is, however, a rule; which provides that in all other proceed-; ings in respect of such penalty not hereinbefore expressly provided for, the procedure and forms prescribed under the. Magistrate's Court Act, 100S, shall be followed. Assuming that -this rule is a valid one, and Dr. Bamiord has not' contended that it is invalid, the plaintiff has, in my opinion, the same right to elect to he nonsuited as a plaintiff in an ordinary action in the Ootrrfc has; and treating Mr. Skelton'a remarks as amounting to an intimation that his clients elect to be nonsuited, and no objection to this course being made by the defendant company, a nonsuit •win "be Tecorded with costs to the defendant company."