STRIKERS AND THE LAW.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIV, Issue 26, 30 July 1907, Page 6

STRIKERS AND THE LAW.

ARGUMENT IN THE APPEAL COURT. After the Post went to press yesterday afternoon argument was continued in the case of Peter Keddio v. H. Millar, which arose out of the recent striko of slaughtermen afc Pareora. Mr. J. L. Stout having followed Mr. Bell, K.C., the case, for respondent was opened by ilr. Raymond. Counsel submitted that, on the construction' of tho Arbitration Act of 1905, the appellant's remedies of enforcement woro those of a judgment creditor, or a judgment given in action for debt or damages. His second submission was that commitment under section 4 of the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act, 1874, was no process for enforcing payment. Thirdly, payment of penalties was not enforceable by attachment ; and, lastly, that the judgment concerned was not an order to do or abstain from doing any act within rule 386. Continuing to-jday Mr. Raymond submitted' that tho fine was a civil debt, having civil consequences only. Imprisonment under tho Debtor's Act was not a process for recovering tho amount, but was punitive in its character. The writ of attachment was not available unless thoro was a contempt of court. Mr. Herdman submitted that the Legislature had nover intended that a man should be liable to imprisonment for a tVivial breach of tho Act.' It .had not gone that far. Tho legislation wns unique' and revolutionary in its character. Bnfore the Aioitration Act came into existence if a worker committed a brcach'of his contract ho was not liable to any criminal process. The primary purpose of iho Arbitration Act was to prevent strikps and to cieate statutory contracts of -employment. Therefore, n it had been intended to imprison men for committing some trivial breach that would have been expressed in clear and unmistakable terms. Counsel quoted the .econt New JSoutn Wales case of ox parti Crockett, in which the Chief Justice stated that the power to interfere with a poison's liberty was not to bo inferred, ospocially when there was anothor process open. The Legislature could have made it quite clear if imprisonment had been intended. The power to imprison had not been specifically blated, und therefore was not to be inferred. Mr. 801 l briefly replied, and the court reserved its decision. _

To-morrow's Rugby fixtures nre: — Bakers v Oriental, Mirainar N,o, 2, Mr. F. Crowes (referee) ; Stars v. Tramways, JBeriumpoi9 A Mr., L, M'Kenzif.