Withdraw Cases Against Watersiders

Northern Advocate, 17 March 1944, Page 4

Withdraw Cases Against Watersiders

ir-.A.i WELLINGTON, This Day. When the eases of six watersiders charged with being parties lo a strike contrary to the strike and lock-out emergency regulations. 1939. were called in the Magistrate’s Court today Mr. W. H. Cunningham. on behalf of the Inspector of Factories, intimated that no evidence would be called on the information. The cases were dismissed for want of prosecution by Mr. A. lVi. Colliding, S.M.

Twenty-four other informations, charging the same offence against workers who had not been served, were withdrawn. Before the waterside’s cases were called Mr. Goulding gave reserved judgment in the cases of three permanent employees of the Harbour Board, who failed to work overtime on the Tamahine. He found all three had committed an offence, but. in view of the submissions made by counsel (Mr. W. E. Leicester) and to allow ol possible appeals he decided not 1o enter convictions until next Friday. Cases Against Others Proceed

Asked if he had anything to say on question of penalty, Mr. Leicester said he was placed in a somewhat embarrassing position. His clients were not in attendance, and tacts had come to his notice which he thought it his duty as counsel to take cognisance of and refer to the court, not on the question of penalty, but as illustrating his difficulty. During the hearing last. Friday certain evidence had been given as to watersiders not accepting employment. There had been argument as to whether the court would allow prosecutions against, three permanent employees of the harbour board to proceed in view of the fact that certain other informations had not been served.

"It has come to my notice this morning.” said Mr. Leicester, "that application is 1o be made that no waterside workers shall be proceeded against, and, lhat being the ease, 1 would like an opportunity of conferring with officials of my clients’ union to see what representations it is my duty, as counsel, to put to the court on any question of penally against the harbour board employees." It seemed that any action that had been taken by his client had been influenced, or at. least coloured, by the attitude of the 'waterside workers and lie .submitted 'it. was proper mat he should takefurther instructions. To Establish Right Mr. Cunningham said that his instructions originally were that, in ihe eventof a conviction being entered, a heavy penalty should not bio asked for. The eases had been brought to establish the right ol employers ro order permanent, employees back. Since they were not asking for a heavy penalty he could not. see that the other eases had any bearing Mr. Goulding: Is it not a fact that waterside workers declined to work on the ship and free labour had to be engaged? It has that bearing on Mr. Leicester’s application. I would like to know what is going to happen with six other cases.”

Mr. Cunningham intimated that he had the necessary authority net to offer any evidence. Mr. Goulding said, if that was the course the Crown was instructed lo adopt, then the court could not do other than dismiss the information. It was not for the court to make any comment. They were not ordinary prosecutions by the ’ police, but were by a Government: Department in a matter in which there might be grounds cf policy involved He did not propose to make any comment whatever on (he matter. The information would be dismissed for want" of prosecution.