COURT OF APPEAL

Evening Star, Issue 16082, 6 April 1916, Page 10

COURT OF APPEAL

POWERS OF ARBITRATION COURT. Arguments were continued at Wellington yesterday in the Court of Appeal in the case of Magner v. Gohns. The case arose under an award made on June 19, 1915, in an industrial dispute between the Wellington District Hotel Club and the Restaurant workers Industrial Union of Workers and certain employers. On August 18, 1915, an action was brought in the Magistrate’s Court at Wanganui by the Inspector of Awards against Annie Magner, of Wanganui, a barmaid, to recover the sum of £5 as a penalty for a breach of award- It was found, or at the hearing that was in the service of an employer bound, by the award, that she was not a member of the union’ and that she had been requested to join the union, but had refused to do so. The Magistrate held, upon these facts, that Annie Magner was guilty of a breach of the award and gtivo judgment against her for the sum of £2 She appealed against the judgment as being erroneous in law, the contention being that the Court of Arbitration had no jurisdiction to insert in an award such a provision as the clause before mentioned, as it amounted to compulsory unionism. The Solicitor-General, on behalf of the Crown, submitted that the clause in the award was intra vires of the Court. He contended that an award absolutely prohibiting the employment of non-unionists amounted merely to preference to unionists within the meaning of section 2 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. If the preference clause must be conditional, the clause under review was conditional. If the. award absolutely prohibiting the employment of non-unionists was not within paragraph (e), it was within paragraphs (b) and (c) as relating to the status and qualification of workers (Taylor and Oakley, 18 N.Z.L.R., 876). Six J. Findlay followed’ the Soiicitor-General, and, Mr Skerrett having replied, decision was reserved. °

SUIT. UNDER FIDELITY POLICY.

Tne Appeal Court sat in the afternoon to hear argument in a special case, the University of New Zealand v. the Standard Insurance Company. The-question under consideration is the company’s liability under a fidelity policy guaranteeing tho fidelity of the registrar of the University (Barclay Hector) up to £I,OOO. The policy limits the. liability to losses incurred by reason of want of honesty of the employee within a period of 12 months previous to the date of any notice or Claim thai may be made under it, and the question is what amount of the total sums embezzled and appropriated to his own use by Hector is covered by the policy. Mr Skerrett, K.C., and Mr J. L. Stout appear for tho University, and Mr Treadwell for the insurance i company. Argument -.va,, concluded this morning, and the, Court reserved decision.