LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2018, 27 March 1914, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

WATERSIDE AGAIN.

AN EX-SECRETARY'S MISSION.

AND HOW HE FARED.

HIS CLAIM TO CHARGE FOR IT.

Yesterday afternoon Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., heard a case arising out of events following tjie strike. George Farland, waterside worker (and quondam secretary of the old Waterside Union), proceeded against Charles Albert Pnrdey, secretary and treasurer of the Wellington Wharf Labourers' Industrial Union, claiming the sum of £3 as wages for certain work executed in accordance with the following resolution carried at .a meeting of the union held on February 7. last:—

"That a committee, censisting of the secretary (Mr.. Purdey), Mr. Geo. Bruce, and tho mover (Mr. Geo. Farland) bo appointed to inquire and report and make recommendations to a'nueting to be sub-. sefjuently held to decide /as to whether, .and to what extent, thero has been due observance by the employers of the terms of any agreement relating to any employment on tho waterfront. Further, that they be given credentials under the seal of tho union arid remuneration at • ' wharf rates." Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr. H. F. von Haast defended. Mr. O'Regan stated that in accordance with the resolution Farland fcad been engaged for five days in carrying but his obligations. He had claimed wages at tho rate of 12s. per day, but the defendant had not paid. Labours of Mr. Farland.

George Gray Farland said that lie was a member, of the union, of which the defendant was secretary. He was a waterside worker, and had been employed, on the wharf sinco the strike. A special meeting of the union had been held on Saturday, February 7, and the above-mentioned resolution had ' been carried at,itl Since the resolution had been carried he had been continually working under the terms specified by it, but he was only suing for five days' wages. He had submitted his report at a subsequent meeting. Cross-examined by Mr. Von Haast, witness asserted that he had not been informed that the executive were not going to recognise tho resolution.- He had also not been.told that his services would not be required. Continuing, witness said that when he called at the office of the executive he had told the secretary that he had come to carry out the wish of the members. The secretary replied that tho executive were going to. hold- a meeting to deal with the matter. When the executive arrived witness was asked to leave the room. Thero was an air of indecision about the executive. When witness again entered tho room he was told that it had been proposed that witness should call together twenty waterside workers,' and that the executive should do likewise, for the purpose of reviewing the business .conducted at Saturday's meeting. Witness, had replied,that he could not do thi3,"a'iid thereupon .Mr.'Jones told witness that the executive) had nothing further to communicate to him. On'tho Monday following" the meetingwitness and Bruce had visited the wharf and commenced to give effect to the resolution. He did not prepare a written report to put beforo tbo executive, hut he made notes in preparation for a verbal report. To the Magistrate: .Purdey did not assist in the work as stipulated in the resolution. .

Re-examined by Mr. Von Haast: It was truc'.that witness did not ask Purdey to assist Bruco and himself, under tho terms of the resolution. This closed the case for tlie plaintiff. Can he Charge for Them? Mr. Von Haast moved for a nonsuit oil the following paints:—(l) That the ;,secretary of the union could not be legally sued;.(2) that tlie plaintiff Earland could not sue because lie had not carried out the terms of the resolution (assuming that it was valid), in that he did not obtain tlio necessary credentials, and did not work in with tho secretary!; (3) tnat the plaintiff Farland could not sue tlie union because he has no contract with it.,' The secretary of a union could not bo made liable to pay an account; lie only carried out the instructions of the executive. Plaintiff's proper course was to sue union, not the union's servant'. Farland ' had apparently acted upon tie resolution, _on the assumption that it could override any decision by the execu■tive. That was why. when told by the executive that they, had nothing more to report,.,that ho acted in defiance of that body. A union could not make a contract with any person without the matter going through the executive. Mr. O'Regari submitted that thero -was nothing in tho nonsuit points raised. This was not an action within tlie purthe Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and, therefore, it could not be contended that a union was really liable. Where it was necessary to sue for a breach of an award tho union, as 1 , a union, would be sued. Ho further contended that, as the meeting of February 7 had been called,on proper lines, tho secretary was: obliged to act up to the resolution which that meeting had passed. . Regarding the credentials, nil that, the speaker could say was that Farland and Bruce had called upon the oxecutive and had practically been told to go about their business. , Tlie Magistrate intimated that he would reserve decision on the" nonsuit points raised by Mr. Von Haast.

DAMAGED BANANAS.

CLAIM AGAINST THE UNION CO

The Union Steam Ship Companv, Ltd., were sued in tho Mafistrato's Court, beforo Mr. W. G. Riddell, S M yesterday by Messrs. Griffiths and Co., Ltd., fruit dealers, Blair Street, for the sum of £45 17s. Id., being' cost of damage to 151 cases of bananas, shipped by the plaintiffs in the defendant company s steamer Tahiti, from Rarotonga to Wellington. In tlle ' statement of claim, Griffiths and Co. sot forth that the cases woro so defectively stowed that the bananas became over-heated and suffered damago to the extent indicated.

Mr. A. Blair, who appeared for Griffiths and Co., stated that the Cook Island regulations stipulated that bananas were not to bo, shipped in a condition other than green and liarcT. Yet when the bananas arrived in Wellington on December 4 .they were in a condition described as "baked." They were hot and discoloured. They becamo watery and ran out of the case. Fruit in such a condition was practically useless. Charles Archibald Griffiths, managing director for Griffiths and Co., stated in evidence that, when the fruit arrived, it was green, but slightly.discoloured, and soft and hot. Witness saw the fruit unshipped. The discharge from one hold was perfectly good and realised top market price (14s. per case), but the bananas from another hold were very pulpy. >

For the defence Mr. E. Levi intimated that lie intended to ask for a nonsuit, as the plaintiffs bad not adopted a right

course of action. Plaintiffs were relying on tho fact that the ordinary common carrier was the insurer of goods. Unfortunately tho doctrine did not apply for such cargo as this. There was no liability to the carrier of a perishable product. There had been no negligence on tho part of tho ship. A trade of this kind was necessarily subject to certain conditions, and tho voyage in question occurred during tho hot summer season. There were special risks run during this period.

Gorald Thomas Hull, master mariner, said ho surveyed every direct fruit ship, in this case the fruit in Nos. 2, 3, and 4 holds was landed in excellent condition, but about two-fifths of tho fruit in No. 1 hold was somewhat over-ripe. It Was his special duty to report on the stowage, and he. had no fault to find with it in this caso.

. Archibald Walker, engineer-surveyor, said he had been instructed to survey tho fruit. He did not see tho manner of stowage, but he took particular notice of a shipment of fruit on tho wharf. Tho condition of a largo portion of it was very soft. This would be due to a higher temperature than usual. It would take a temperature of over 100 degrees to bake bananas.

Alfred James Thomas Pell, carter, said he had been instructed to removo the bananas. They were in very bad order. Out of about 100 cases he could not find one that was good. _ His Worship reserved decision.

, DEFAULT, DEBT-LIST. Judgment for plaintiff, bv defcult, was given by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., in the following undefended cases: — Commercial Agency v. V. A.-.C. Man, £25 145., costs £3 25., and £17 4s. 3d., costs £2 18s. 6d.; Forde and Co. v. Walter Latimer, £1 7s. 6d., costs 55.; same v. Edith' Upham, £1 10s., costs 55.; samo v. William Gabrielson, £6 55., costs £1 3s. Od.; Len Cloake v. Patrick M'Grath, £4 7s. 6d., costs 10s.; Blake, Carlisle; and Co. v. John Korsten, £13 7s. 3d., costs £1 16s. 6d.; New Zealand .Express Company v. L. L. Cohen, costs only, 55.; Now Zealand Farmers' Cooperative Distributing Co., Ltd., v. Thomas' Henry Gingell, £14 2s. 2d., costs £1 10s. 6d.; Barber and Co. v. Charles Koroneko 14s. 3d., costs 10s.; Commercial Agency v. J. Richardson £2 145., costs 10s.; samo v. R. F. Thomson £22 lis.: 4d., costs £2 145.; GlynJones and Pearson v. H. T. Watson, £4 9s. Id., costs 10s.; samo v. John G. Blaokie, £4 14s, 3d.; costs 10s.; Douglas Harrison v. James Shepherd, £2, costs 10s.; "N.Z. Times,'" Ltd., v. T. R. Husband, £12, costs £1 10s. 6d. '' JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

Walter Keay was ordered to pay William Wiggins, £11 45.. 3d., by April 9; Albert Alexander Davies to pay Forde and Co., £3 10s. by April 9; Thomas Hodges to pay Wellington Loan (Jo:, Ltd., £4 2s. 6d. by April 9, warrant to be suspended so long as defendant pays 10s. a week; Tari. Ropata to pay James Koorey, £33 15s. Id. by April 9. POLICE BUSINESS. Mr. D, G.'A. Cooper, S.M., dealt with the police business at the Magistrate's Court yesterday.

James Foster* pleaded guilty to charges of disorderly conduct whilst drunk, and with fighting a police constable. The Magistrate imposeda fine of £1 on each chargo and costs Bs.

"A number of complaints have been niade in the past about people sleeping in trucks and carriages," said Inspector. Hendrey, in respect of a chargo of being found without lawful excuse in a railway, carriage, preferred against a young man named Thomas Frederick. The accused was found asleep in a carriage in the Lamhton Station yard at 1.40 a.m. yesterday. The Magistrate fined accused 10s'., in default: 48 hours', imprisonment. .' " ■ ■' v

For insobriety John M'Carthy was fined £1, and for a similar offence Pat-rick-Daly was'fined 10s: One first offender was fined 10s., and five others, were convicted and discharged.