THE SLAUGHTERMEN'S STRIKE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XC, Issue 13315, 18 June 1907, Page 5

THE SLAUGHTERMEN'S STRIKE.

THE PAREORA CASES. W'RiTft OF ATTACHMENT REFUSED. Per Press Association. DUNEDIN, June 17. Mr Justice Williams gave judgment this morning in the matter of the order of the Arbitration Court at Timaru whereby H. Millar ivas ordered to pay to the Inspector of Awards at Timaru £5 for breaking the terms of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act by taking part in a strike. Th? following ■ ars extracts from His. Honour's judgment: Respondent under section 15 of the > Amendment Art was .fined £5 by the Arbitration Court for taking part in a strike. Sub-section (3) of section 101 provides for 111? enforcement of payment, It enacts that. for the purpose of enforcing payment of a fine and costs payable under any ordev,of the Court, a certificate in the proscribed form specifying the amount payable and the respective parties or persons by and to whmii the same is payable., may be filed in any Court having civil jurisdiction to. the extent of such amount, and shall thereupon according to its t.°nonr be-enforcp-ab!e in all respects? as a-final judgment of such Court in'its civil jurisdiction. The certificate required has been filed in the pre" rut casa in the Supreme Court. • The question is whether by virtue of :;üb- c ecfiqn (;E) of section 101, a writ of attachment can issue against- vnspondent so'that lie can be committed to prison for making' default in payment erf the fine. If he can be so committed, it is,.only because by /-making default in payment, of it penalty, or .i sum in the. nature of a. penalty, he comes within the first exception "7n section 3 of the* Imprisonment, for Debt Abolition Art, 1874. and is punishable accordingly. Unle's he comes within the excepted cases in that section, no person can be imprisoned for nnn-payment of a. sum of money. - of the English Debtors' Act, 1869. The effect of section 4 has been discussed in various cases. Sub-sec.rion (E) of section 101. does not pretend to give power to punish for. non-payment, of a. fine; it- merely prescribes what may be done for the purpose of enforcing payment. As shown by the English cases punishment by imprisonment for r defitult in payment is not a. process for enforcing payment. Rub-section (E) pre-scribf-s that' a certificate according to i'ts tenour is to b? ; enforce-'tbta in all .respects asl a final judgment of the Court in its civil jurisdiction. A fine is not enforceable by the Court in its civil, jurisdiction. An order for .payment, therefore, is to be treated hot as a. fine,, but as a. final judgment in a. civil action —it is to be enforced according: to its tenour. The tenour of it simply is that £5 is payable to the applicant 'bv the respondent. The Arbitration Court- liad ordered this sum to be via id by the. respondent to the applicant. Where a - Court of competent jurisdiction lias* ordered •a man to pay a, sum of money, to another that- is. a, debt due from one to the other. : I find nothing in sub-section (E) to suggest that the J-egislature intended that,in the event of default .in payment of a fine inflicted br the Arbitration Court- mirier section ICI. the person iit default should ,be punished by imprisonment. When the Legislntiire intended that defaiiltxin pay-ment-'of a, fine inflicted by the Arbitration Court for an. offence should be punished bv imprisonment, it has expressed itself very clearly. Sections 81, 107, 112, 113 and .188 of the principal Act ..create t.lie offences punishable by fine. Section 103 gives the Arbitration Court exclusive, iurisdic.tio'n to deal with these offences. Proto 13? tnlv6n before tjirit Coin t, summary proceedings are taken the justices of the Peace Act, 1882. When - the Court makes an order for the payment of a- fine it is filed in the nearest Magistrates. Court, and is, thereupon, to-be enforced as a final conviction o'v order made ,bv the Stipendiary Magistrate utid'e.r the ' summary 'provision*, of the.'' Justices of the Peace; Act. 1882. that brings into play section 91 to 97' (inclusive) of the latter Act and makes default in payment punishable by imprisonment' for a. period hot exceed - in"- -the terms mentioned in the • scaie set out in section '96. Acfeordinn to that se'ale where an amount- exceeds -VI tmjdoes not exceed £5 one. month is the maximum If the contention of 'the applicant is correct—that the lion payment of a fine inflicted under section 101 of the Act of 1905 can be punished by imprisonment under sub-section (E)—the- maximum term •'for- the most trivial fine would b. 3 on» year a period beyond which by the third Section of the Act- of 1874, no person can be imprisoned for non-payment- of money. Further than this, if a man has served his- term of imprisonment under section 96 lie is no longer liable to a- 'fine. Tlv* Legislature certainly considered the offences under the sub-sections mentioned in section 103 -more serious than those under section 101, and the startling result would follow, that more serious liabilities; would be incurred for a lesser ofl .'-nee than for a. more serious one. The Legislature had clearly before it two classes of fines—those inflicted uijde,r section 101. and thos* inflicted under section 11, and those inflicted under the section mentioned in section 103. As to t-lie latter, it made express provision for payment by imprisonment in default of payment. A-'i to the former it made no such provision, but enacted that uavments should be -enforced practically as if they were' civil debts. It would havs been ' simple enough to have placed both classes in the same category, and the fact that the Legislature refrained from doing s>o m the strongest possible reason . for holding that it had no intention that- imprisonment should follow on default of-pay-ment of a line- inflicted under wction 101. When, also, the Legislature passed the Amendment Act it had before it- sections. 101 and 103 of the principal Act. Tf it. had intended that cletault- m payment- of a tine, under section 15 of the Amendment. Act was to be punished by imprisonment, proceedings 'would have been directed under section 103 and not under section 101. The law must be clear, and not a. matter of doubtful inference if the liberty of the subject is to be interfered with. In the, former 'case the North Canterbury strikers), Mr Justice, Cooper took a contrary view to that, which I now take. He, however, was under 'a great disadvantage in having had only one side of the case presented to him. I feel justified, therefore, in differing from his conclusion, although if he had heard the case argued as I have heard it, and his judgment had followed on such argument, I should have greatly hesitated before doing so 1 have the satisfaction of knowing that, if my decision is wrong the Court of Appeal can sqt it right very shortly. If, on the other hand, there is a hole in the Act requiring a patch, Parliament is at hand- to patch it. The motion will be refused. Al the hearing at the Supreme Court, at Timaru, recently, Mr J W. Whit- 1 aiv v Mr Stringer. K.'CU appeared for the Inspector of Awards, and Mr -S'. G Raymond for the respondent- (Millar.)