UNWARRANTED.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1108, 22 April 1911, Page 7

UNWARRANTED.

UNION OFFICIAL INTERFERES, " HOT STUFF JACK."; HE IS PROVOKED TO ASSAULT. ; In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, beforo Mr. W. G. ltiddell, S.M., George Grey Farlaud, assistant -secretary of tho Wharf Labourers' "Union, sued John Curry, tho Union Company's labour foreman, for assault. The case arose out of an occurrence on the wharf on April 11. Mr. W. H. D. Bell appeared for complainant, and Mr. A. L. Hcrdmau for defendant. Mr. Bell stated that the charge arose out of a dispute regarding the handling of cement. On the day of the assault, the Hauroto -was discharging cement and other cargo, and defendant endeavoured to induce' the men to desist from using hooks in ' handling the cement .sacks. Farland had deemed it his duty, as an official of the union, to advise them not to give up a concession which they had previously gained (the use of hooks). That seemed to incense defendant, who caught hold of Far-, land, ran him through the shed, and tried to force him over the "drop" of the shed into Jervois Quay. Had defendant succeeded, Farland would probably havo been severely injured. Georgo Grey Farland stated that, on 'April 11, he was watching cargo coining out of the Hauroto when ho noticed a sling which seemed to threaten danger to some of the men, and he had it stopped in its descent. Mr. M'Leod, wlio was in charge of the men, remonstrated wsMi him (witness). Then defendant Curry came up and, observing that tho men were using hooks, gave the order that they must bo put down. Witness advised the men not to forego the use of hooks, and Curry then made some remark about "hitting him on tho jaw." After some words, defendant "swung a right" on to witness, and, catching hold of him, ■an him through tho shed,until some if tho men came and separated Uiem. Witness's position did not lllow of his striking back. - ' . To Mr. Herdman: He knew that Curry was in cliargo of the Union Company's men, and was responsible for the. handling of tho cargo.. It was true that Curryhad.resonted his interference on a previous occasion. Mr. Herdman: What business is it of yours to go down there and interfere with the men in tho performance of their duty? ''.-,. ' Witness replied, that ho claimed a general right to be on the wharf,' and also, considered that liis position -warranted his looking after the interests of tho men. . ' . Mr. Herdman: Why don't yon go to Mr. Curry?—"Wo'vo tried that: before without success." , '■• '.•''. By what right then do you go there, and incite the'men to mutiny?— Witness replied that that was overdrawing .the. position.. .

You went there to incite those men to knock off work, didn't you P—"No. I said that they were very foolish to give up a privilege." In further cross-examination witness admitted that ho had hot complained to Captain Scott or to Curry before speaking to the men, but denied that he had invited Curry ',to "coino on" and light, or that ho (witness) had shaped up to Curry. Charles Anderson, wharf labourer, gave evidence to the effect that Curry was}'taking"tlffi"offensive' jn. ,t!ie "scuffle that occurred, but" He "could not' say what'happened before'.the scuffle. For the defence, Mr. Herdman submitted that.this was mora than. an ordinary case of assault." Defendant sometimes had over 300 men in his charge,, and ho was .responsible for their safety. Farland had, on more than one oceasioiv gone down and interfered with the men.. On this particular day Curry, vas absent for. a , time-, ami vhen he camo back, and wu~ told that Farland 'had been practically inciting tho'men. to mutiny, he naturally told him to get out of the way. Farland then adopted a 'defiant attitude, and counsel would suggest that his (Farland's) actions' practically amounted to assaults If law and order were to be kept,- it' was preposterous that a man should bo allowed to go among workmen and deliberately incite them to mutiny. Tho evidence would show that that was practically 1 what Farland had done.

John Curry, labour foreman for the TJ.S.S. Company, said that'it was. a common thing .for Farland to ' como down on the wharf and interfere with the men. Witness had previously remonstrated with him for this. On the day of tho assault witness had seen Farland shouting something to the hatohman. Witness was told that tho men were using hooks, and ho told them to desist. Farland then jumped among the men and became very excited, telling them not to give up the use of tho hooks. , Witness pushed him away several times, and as Farland defied him witness caught hold of him and pushed him into tho shed. A little.before this occurrence Farland had been interfering with the cargo as it camo from the slings, arid his action had tended to endanger the lives of the men. In cross-examination by Mr 8011, witness stated positively that Farlandhad incited hiin to fight. Witness had never been a professional boxer, but had sparred in tho ring, ■ and • would have a "go" with anyone now for ex-" ercise. '■.:'" Mr. Bell: You're known as "Hot Stuff Jack"? Witness: That's on account of my name 1 suppose. ' Mr. Hcrdman: • Thev call him "hot stuff' your Worship, because his name's Curry. Continuing, witness claimed that he was the quietest man on tho wharf, but he had to protect his men. When ho shifted Farland it was for the safety of the men. It was necessary to get rid ot the "nuisance" first. . Captain Stott, Marine Superintendent tor-the Imion Company, gave evidence to the effect that Farland had been interfering with tho men working the Hauroto prior to the assault. Archibald V. Halo Monro, wharfinger stated that ho had received a complaint that Farland was interfering with the men .working the Hauroto's cargo on April 11, Witness had previously received a similar complaint about'Farland.

Evidence as to previous interference was also given by Thomas William Boon.'

Hugh Andrew, M'Lcocl, assistant labour foreman for the Union Company, stated that when Farhnd stopped the sling coming down no one was in danger. Farland's action was one. of unwarranted interference without reason or excuse. Witness saw . Curry run Variant! through the slier], but saw no blow struck. .

The magistrate, in summing up the case, remarked that the complainant's sido of the caso consisted of his own evidence and that of a witness who did not see the origin of the affair. Defendant had denied striking a blow, stating that bo bad merely shoved. It seemed to hi.s Worship that the matters in dispute were, industrial matters to be settlad by the. Arbitration Court, and no person-had a right to interfere. The men had enough common sense to see that, thev got their rights, and the action of Farland was quite unwarranted, and brought the trouble about. If Farland had acted constitutionally the trouble would never have occurred. There had been an assault, but it 'was caused by the nrovoeation given by complainant, and his Worship was not prepared to convict. The information wouid be dismissed without costs.