S.S. MOKOIA CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 157, 4 July 1921, Page 6

S.S. MOKOIA CASE.

ECHO OF JOCKEYS' STRIKE.

IN ARBITRATION COURT.

An echo of the jockeys' strike was heard in the Arbitration Court to-day, tns Honor Mr. Justice Frazer Mr. W. Scott and Mr. .1. A. McCulloUgh as assessors, when W. T.ghe (Mr. A. E_ Skelton) appealed against the decision of Mr E. C. Cutten, S.M., that the appellant was a party to the sympathetic strike alleged to have taken P !ace on board the Mokoia on July 12, 1020. The appeal was opposed by Mr. B. T. Bailey, representing the Labour Department at Wellington. It will be recalled that several firemen., trimmers and greasers were involved in the lower Court case, at the conclusion of which the magistrate expressed the view that the defendants had been parties to a strike, only to enter judgment against Tighe, the. other <-asos to be disposed of according to the result of any appeal by Tighe, if he had power to appeal. The magistrate did not then grant Tighe leave of appeal, is he stated he had no power to do so. The grounds of appeal were that at the hearing it was not proved that the defendant, on July 12, 1920, became a purty to the alleged strike: that :li9 acts or conduct did not in law constitute mm a party to the alleged strike within the meaning of the Arbitration Act, section 5 i and that the magistrate's finding was erroneous in point of law. A preliminary legal 'point argued before the Arbitration Court was whether the magistrate, having disposed of Tighe s and allowed the papers to go out of his possession, had power afterwards to grant leave of appeal, the statutory period having expired. There was involved the further question whether the Arbitration Court had any jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Mr. Skelton having argued the matter, Mr. Bailey said that as the appeal was purely on" a point of law, and a3 there were 22 or 23 other cases depending upon Tighe's appeal, on ahy one of which Mr. Skelton could begin de novo, he would waive any preliminary objections, and go into the matter of the appeal as it stood. His Honor: I do not think in the circumstances that anyone is likely to question our jurisdiction. IS "A THREAT" AN OFFENCE.

Mr. Skelton contended that it had never been proved that Tighe was a member of the watchesinvolved when a deputation of the crew informed the captain that they would not sail with Sir George Clifford, president of the Racing Conference, on board. Even assuming that Tighe was a member of the deputation the utmost that could be said was that there was a threat to discontinue work. If the legislature had intended that a threat to strike was to be an offence within the meaning of the section, it would surely have made it an offence in exact terms, seeing it had gone to special pains to make it an offence for a person to incite or instigate or aseist any person to become a party to an illegal strike. There was no evidence of any order being given and disobeyed.

Mr." Bailey contended it was not necessary to prove a breach of service. There was, however, actually a partial stoppage of work, for the boat was delayed about an hour.

In reply Mr*. Skelton said that the 23 defendants could not all have disobeyed orders, for only eight men were due on watch; the others were free to go to their berths if they liked. Decision was reserved. "•-S^.%.