THE BLACKBALL STRIKE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIX, Issue 14736, 15 July 1908, Page 4

THE BLACKBALL STRIKE.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL. [Pub Press Association.] WELLINGTON, July 1-1. Tho Court of Appeal Bench, consistj ing of 'Justices Williams (president), | Denniston, Edwards, Cooper and Chap- [ man, sab. at 10.30 this morning to hear I the- case Crown v. Blackball' miners. i This was a motion in tho Supreme ! Court on bclialf of members of tho 'Blackball Miners' Industrial Union of ! Workers for tho issue of a writ of cerI tiorari for the removal of an. order made by the Court of Arbitration into the Supremo Court to bo quashed on the ground, that the Court of Arbitration had no jurisdiction to make such order. Alternatively, the motion asked for a ovrit of prohibition to restrain i the Stipendiary Magistrate from giving 1 effect to the order. After the strike of I the Blackball miners, tho Court of Ar- ! bitration imposed a fine of £75 on tho j Miners' Union. A certificate order of i the Court, in pursuance of section 101 of the Industrial Conciliation and ArI bitration Act, 1905, wa6 filed in tho Magistrate's Court at Groymouth, and on the application of James Isbcll, local I Inspector of Awards, a distress warrant ; was issued against tho union by Mr R. '. H. Turton, S.M. The bailiff who exe--1 cuced the warrant could find no pro- ; porty belonging to the union and the j warrant was not satisfied. Section 101 ! (f) of th» Act of 1905 provides that if I the property of a union is insufficient j to satisfy a judgment debt, "its memI bers shall be liable for the deficiency." i The Inspector of Awards then applied to the Court of Arbitration, which was sitting at Auckland, for an order to enforce payment of the fine from individual members of the union. That Court made an order, a certificate of which was duly filed in the Magistrate'sCourt at Grey mo nth. There were some 166 members, and the liability of each member was, by the order, limited to £lO. On the application of the Inspector of Awards, a distress warrant was issued against all members jointly, and tli'.i bailiff, under warrant, seized a quantity of goods. Some of these member.-- of the Union claim that the Court of Arbitration, had no jurisdiction under section 101 to make the order it made. These proceedings wore instituted to test the Validity of tho order. By consent of the parties and. by order of Mr Justice Denniston, the motion was removed into tho Court of Appeal for argument. Mr Skerrett, K.C., and Mr Guinness appeared for the members of the union land Mr H. D. Bell, K.C., and Mr D. M. Findlay to oppose tho motion. Mr Skerrett contended, first, that in spite of sections 80 and 06 of the Act of 1005, certiorari should not be taken, away where want of jurisdiction appeared plainly on tho face of the proceedings. Clause (f), section 101, ma-do members .of a union liable if tho union could not pay a fine, imposed, but this meant only they were civilly liable and the only remedy against them was to sue them as for debt. Section 15 of tho Amendment Act referred only to a union incorporated. It did not incorporate. I f it did, innocent members could be fined lor the wrongful act of the union and could be imprisoned for non-payment of a fine. Continuing, Mr Skerrett contended that the liability of members was not in the nature of a penalty but only a civil liability, and could only bo recovered by action. Mr Guinness also addressed the Court. Mr 8011, K.C., contended that sections 80 and illj absolutely took away tho jurisdiction of tho Supreme Court to interfere with any order of tho Arbitration Court on any grounds. Ho

also contended that the order was in proper form and that the right method of enforcing it had been adopted. Mr D. M. Findlay also addressed the Court. Mr Skcrrett, K. 0.. replied, and the Court reserved judgment.