STATEMENT BY MR. DIXON.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13725, 15 April 1908, Page 8

STATEMENT BY MR. DIXON.

" ; '. / (l JUSTICE ONLY." ■' HISTORY OF THE CASE. . In view of the interest attached to his case, a Herald representative sought an interview with Mr. Dixon in the Mount Eden Gaol. . The necessary permission having been granted, the reporter was shown into the receiving room, where he found Mr. Dixon in charge of a warder. Asked to give the history of his case, Mr. Dixon willingly assented. " In February, 1902," he said, "a son of a neighbour of mine came to me and asked for employment, and to do him a good turn, more out of sympathy than anything else, I took him on as an apprentice for five years. He told me that he was 19 years of age. The young man continued in my employ for six months, at the end of which time his father took him away, much against my will. After being away for some two years he came back to me, and asked for employment again. I told him that it was not a right thing for him to come back to me again after the way he had acted before. However, I was busy at the time, and gave him a job, telling him that he had better finish out his apprenticeship. He agreed to do so, and I gave him credit for the two years he had been aWay, so that his apprenticeship would have expired in February, 1907. He went on at 7s a day, which is above the 'wage for an apprentice in his fourth year. At the end of six months he asked for an increa-se to 8s per day. « I,did not think he was worth it, so I told him if he could get better money elsewhere he had better go and try. He then turned round on me and said he would make me give him the money. I said, 'Well, go and do your worst.' The matter was then reported to the union, which reported to the inspector of factories, who cited me before the Arbitration Court- for employing a journeyman at under-rate wages. The case before- the Arbitration Court came on for hearing in April, 1907. I contended before the Court that the young man in question was still my apprentice within the true meaning of the Act. He gave evidence, declaring that 1 c was a competent journeyman, and I gave evidence that he was not. The whole proceedings only lasted five minutes, and before I knew where I was I was fined £5 and costs, while the man himself was mulcted in the sum of 10s for accepting less than the minimum wage. I consider that I did not get a fair hearing. However, I paid the fine, and was afterwards sued by my former employee for buck wages amounting to £39. ' This suit came on for hearing before Mr. H. W. Northcroft, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court, Papakura, in duly, 1907. I then contended that the plaintiff was not a journeyman carpenter, but the magistrate quoted the Pahiatua case against me. in which it was ruled that an employer is liable for back wages, despite any previous agreement he has arrived at with his employee. I contended that my ease was not at all like the Pahiatua case, as there there was no dispute about the man's apprenticeship, for he had been at his trade for about 15 years. In my case I considered that he was not a journeyman at all until after he had served his fifth year. The magistrate was dealing with an apprentice, and I submitted, being his first employer, I was entitled to deal with him as an apprentice. The magistrate then asked me how could I expect him to find him other than a journeyman after the ruling of the Arbitration Court." " Did the Arbitration Court find that he was a journeyman?" "Well," was the reply, "they fined me for employing ,i journeyman, at under-rate wages, which in the Court's ruling made him a journeyman. The plaintiff gave evidence himself. I also gave evidence, and called my brother, in my employ, to show that the plaintiff was not a competent journeyman. The magistrate finally gave judgment tor £21 and costs. The reason for the reduction in the amount was that I produced receipts showing that certain of the moneys claimed had been paid. I told the magistrate that I would appeal, and he said he would help me. A few days afterwards I came to town and took legal advice on the matter, and the lawyer was to let me know finally on the seventh day, the date on which the time allowed for the appeal expired. This letter, however, did not arrive in time, so T laid the appeal myself, but, as I afterwards discovered, it was informal in that it had not been properly filled in. "In November last I was called upon to answer a judgment summons, and was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, in default two months' imprisonment* ' I then

applied to the Minister for Justice for a rehearing of the whole case, but he onlyreplied stating that he could-nob' interfere, with the course of justice. In March a warrant was taken out against me, and was executed 011 the 31st, and I am here now."'

"What is your reason for not complying with the judgment?" "I hold that the man was my apprentice,' in spite of all the decisions given against me. According to the Arbitration Court award in the carpenters' dispute, 1905, lie is still my apprentice. I want a rehearing before the Arbitration Court. My reason for not paying the amount and going to. gaol is in some way to get justice I thought that in going to gaol the public would be roused, and the Minister for Justice would be compelled to take some action. I consider that I have been unfairly treated by the Arbitration Court. I don't blame the magistrate so much, as lie acted on the Arbitration Court's ruling.' "Did you take steps before to get the case reheard by the Arbitration Court?"

Yes, I made inquiries, but it appears that there are no provisions in the Act for a re-hearing. " "Is there no possibility of your paying the amount in the end?"

" No, I don't intend to. At the risk of losing all 1 have, I intend to stop here. I won't pay the money. lam informed that after serving the two months' of my imprisonment, that I can' still be reimprisoned, and, perhaps, kept in prison for life if 1 do not pay the.amount." " And you are not going .tc give in?" "No. I consider that I have been unjustly handled and I won't take that from anybody. I want justice only. Another object I have in view is to make the Arbitration Court consider cases properly in future, instead oi slumming them over as has been done in some cases in the past. 'Hie employers, I consider, are not getting fail- treatment, from the Arbitration Court, in that they do not get a proper hearing."