THE BOOTMAKERS' STRIKE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8629, 27 July 1891, Page 6

THE BOOTMAKERS' STRIKE.

A NEW PHASE. 'A® the Police Court on Saturday morning an important phase of the bootmakers' strike was dealt with by Dr. Giles. A young man named Robert Wheatley was charged with having failed to comply with an order of the Court for the maintenance of an illegitimate child, the sum in arrears amounting to £4 ss. Mr. Adam Brock appeared for the complainant, and stated that th order had been made some years ago. Defendant had recently married. The money had been paid regularly until the last few months. He had hoped that defendant would have married the complainant, bub he had not done bo. ;

Defendant deposed that the only excuse be had to offer was that his wages had suffered recently, but he was now earning £2 per week. : He had been for some time one of the participators in the bootmaker's strike, and during the time had only been in receipt of 22s 6d per week. He struck because he had been called out by the Federal Union.

f „ Dr. Giles pointed out that that' meant that he deliberately gave up a situation in which he was earning good wages without having any necessity to do so. There was no compulsion for him to throw up his place. Defendant replied that when a man became a member of the society he must comply with the rules of such society. Dr. Giles went on to state that however that might be, the law did not recognise the authority of any body of men over any individual. He, the defendant, was a free agent, and could not excuse himself because he had received instructions from others to leave his employer. Of course very good reasons might at any time arise between the defendant as an individual and his master which would warrant him in leaving his place. -But that was Bomething very different from what the defendant had done in this instance. He : (Dr. Giles) could not admit, and never would admit, that any person had the right to give up his employment at the bidding of an outside authority, and thus incapacitate himself from discharging his lawful debts. Such a course was contrary to every principle of law, and the defendant went on strike upon his own responsibility. He inusb therefore bear the consequences. If any person, who was under an order of Court to pay certain monies, voluntarily leaves his situation, it was no use for him to say that he was acting under the authority .of certain other persons. Such authority was not recognised by the law. ■ Defendant was ordered to pay 7s 6d per week until the arrears had been paid off, *Wand 5s per week afterwards.