SEAMEN'S UNION DISPUTES.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 69, 22 March 1915, Page 4

SEAMEN'S UNION DISPUTES.

*- - AX APPLICANTS CLAIM. Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., was again engaged to-day at. the Magistrate's Court taking evidence in the case between the Auckland Branch of the Australasian j Federated Seamen's Union (Mr. Prendergast) and'the Auckland Seamen and Firemen's Union (Mr. A. E. Skelton). I The action was that a penalty he im- ! posed of £50 upon defendant union for having refused to admit "William Simpson, "a man of good character," as a member of the union. Angus Nicholson was re-examined by Mr. Prendergast, and -further crossexamined by Mr. Skelton. He stated no express authority -waa given fee secretary by resolution empowering'him to admit members. Any members admitted by the secretary were subject to the approval of the committee' at j the next meeting. He did not Icnojv of any applicant for membership being refused. , One man was put back three j months, but witness could not Temember anyone being refused. A man of good character would get his card as a I member of the union from the secretary. There was trouble in getting meetings of the executive, as two were away in the Maheno in Sydney, and she was laid up some time. They did not get back for three months.

Herbert Hill, foreman on the Ngapuhi, vice-president of the defendant union, said he was a member of the executive of the defendant union since its formation. He did not remember Simpson's name ever coming before any executive meeting at which he was present. "There is no man in Auckland I - would turn jdown myself," added witness.

Georg e —««-o*ett, president of defendant union at the present time, also deposed that he -had never heard Simpson's name mentioned at the executive. Membership was not refused because an applicant was a member of the plaintiff union.

| Mr. Kettle said it was quite clear that three leaves had been cut out of the minute-book. While that looked suspious. in fact, very suspicious, still he could not on the evidence say that was done deliberately to prevent certain evidence beinjr brought before the Court. If that had been proved it would have been a criminal offence.

George Wigg was recalled by Mr. Kettle, and further questioned. After having heard argument. hi* Worship intimated he would reserve his decision.