HUNTLY JARS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 30, 4 February 1913, Page 6

HUNTLY JARS.

RIVAL WORKERS IN COURT. (From Onr Own Correspondent.) HUNTLY, this day. The sitting of Justices at the Courthouse at Huntly on Monday, evidenced the fact that the bitterness between Arbitrationists and Federationists has not vet died down. In each of the ten 01 eleven charges against four defendants this question in some shape or form cropped up. Messrs. E. J. Farrell and W. R. Leather presided. As an aftermath of a particularly stormy meeting held on the 18th January, the secretary of the Huntly Miners' Union was charged with threatening behaviour in a pulblic place. The evidence of the complainant, one, W. J. Douglas, was to the effect that after certain heated passages in the meeting in question, the secretary of the Union had followed him outside and challenged him to fight. He admitted that amongst other remarks at the meeting he had said that he (Douglas) unlike others in the meeting, had not legs on his chest, the inference being that those so gifted had these extra limbs for the purpose of crawling to the company. Two witnesses, Heyes and Molesworth, would not swear to the statement that the defendant had shoved his fist into Douglass' face. S. Dixon, secretary of the Union, wished a" adjournment, but the Justices would not allow it. He then elected to make a statement. The whole matter was one of industrial dispute, Douglas always having been opposed to him. Douglas had been particularly active and offensive at the meeting of the 18th. After the meeting, in reply to a taunting remark from Douglas that Dixon had at any rate met with one defeat, Dixon followed Douglas, and said that the latter should settle his grievance like a man. He denied the statement that he had taken off his coat, and could have had evidence, but had no idea that such a lying statement would 'be made. The Justices said they recognised that the case was I one arising out of industrial trouble, but i Mr. Dixon, even though he believed himself insulted, should have restrained himself. Mr. Leather, who had himself been a union secretary, said a man required for the position a thick hide and a cool temper. In view of the uature of the offence, the fine would be only 20/ and costs. A young man, a miner, was charged with disorderly behaviour, obscene language, and resisting and assaulting the police. The constable said that this man, ordinarily of blamelse 'behaviour, i had got drunk, declared that he was looking for Arbitrationists and scabs. I and became very violent. He was fined in all £6. The next man charged bad been fighting on two occasions with an Arbitrationist, and was fined 20/ and ! costs. The fourth defendant was ; charged wk. disorderly behaviour, and ' obscene language. He pleaded guilty tc j the charges of disorderly behavioui ! i but not to • that of obscene language IHe alleged that George, one of th< ' complainants, had wanted to get at hin [ ! for some time, and had taken thif 1 i chance. George, in cross-examination ; admitted that another man had at th< ' same time used foul language, but h< bad been unable to get this offender , ! name. This defendant was fined £5 anc costs.