MAGISTERIAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIC, Issue 13395, 19 September 1907, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TiMAitr, skptemijkr isih, 1907. I Before Mr C. A. VYray. S.M.) CIVII, CASKS. T. J. Burnt; (Mr SJiawJ v. R. Maine, claim £5 Bs. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default, with costs £1 6s 6d. HjVcial other cas-s were adjourned <iu i 11..' application of counsel. Souili Canterbury Mill-owners' Union IMr .Raymond) v. \V. Quinn (Mr Kinnernoy).' claim £3 3s- subscription fee-. Mr Raymond said it would be ishown that defendant was ail original member of (he Union "and had paid -subscriptions atfirst, but for three yeans had paid nothing. Tlio subscriptions were-. recoverable unik-r ;l rule of the Union. (ieorge I'onker, secretary of the Mill - owners' ."ni■ a miu-.- September, 1904, produced the c.vlilicat-.- of registration of the* Union. .11.-fondant had paid no subscriptions in wilnesse'* time, although ho was a member, and had attended two meetings of the Union, and no notice of resignation had been given by him.

To Mr Kinnerney: Was not secretary when the Union wais formed, but on looking up the books he found that Quinn was was a member, liad paid previous fees, and was a member of the committee. Could not say whether defendant had said he would only join the Union on condition that the majority of the mill-owners joined. There were about 30 members of the Union, and about 70 mills altogether i(? the district. The minute book showed that the rules had been passed in 1902 by a meeting of members. The rule providing for paymei>fc of fees provided that, payments, y-ere due in one week from the annual general meeting, but there was no mlo fixing the. date of this meeting, nor a 'date when subscriptions were due. Twenty-eight of the thirty members were financial.

To Air Raymond : The annual meeting v.-as always held in August . Mr Quinn had never made any objection to paying his .subscription. W. Glendinning, the original secretary of the Union,with headquarters in Waimate, said Quinn was one of the founders of the Union, and was a member of ths committer for some time. Defendant had paid twq subscriptions during witness' term of office. Witness ceased-to be secretary on the- removal of the Union's office to Timaru. Defendant had never resigned his membership. To Air Kinnerney: Defendant had not tokl witness that he would pay subscriptions for a while/ without becoming a member. . ' ..

To Air Raymond : Defendant had taken part in the affairs of the Union.

Mr Kinnerney submitted that tlio" Act under which the Union was formed was superseded In- another. ,This was not a lawful association. Section 2 of th j Act defined employers as persons employing one or more workers. Section 5 provided for an association of not lesa than , two employers. A sub-sec-tion provided for the making of rules. Rule 2 of the Union provided that all owners of mills, whether employers or not, could b.9 members, and such members had .voting power. . Owners who were not employers did not come within the scope of the Act. and as the rules rendered them eligible for membership, the Union was not within the purview of the Act. Although a certificate of registration had been granted, it did not follow that the Union was an "industrial union," 'as defined by the Act. He quoted cases heard in Christcliurch and Auckland to uphold his contention. The rules of the Union &vere registered at tlie same time as the certificate was granted. Counsel submitted that these rules were invalid in regard to voting power and to llie powers of the meetings. There were r.o provisions Jfor Hhe control of fiiti'ds so required. by, the of . boolis and names fof members, • or register of msmbate being ikept;; these: provisions must always be provided for; In- the case of the Inspector of Awards v. Wellington Slaughtermen's Union, it was .shown that- the provisions of the Act must be complied -with. These provisions must be strictly adhered to, otherwise the Union had no power to enforce its rules. The right to enforce payment of subscriptions depended on the validity of the. rulei, and .if the rules were invalid, they could not be recovered.

Mr Raymond argued that the. right- to recover fees was provided by section 15 of the Act of 1905. Defendant -was a member of the committee of the Union for about two years, and had. helped to draw up the rules. With regard to the Union not being a Union of employers, they had the registration of the Union, and the Act showed that the Registrar could grant a certificate on being satisfied with the validity of the application. Groups of persons had formed unions entirely outside ihe scope of the Act. Quinn. had admitted by paying his first subscription that he was tlio owner of a mill employing labour. There was prima facie evidence of the registration of the Union, and the term "owner of a threshing mill" must mean the owner of a mill engaged in an industrial pursuit. Therefore, owners oanie within the definition of employer. It was not within defendant's power to dispute the validity of the registration. The Registrar had evidently been satisfied that the Union was entitled to register. The rules of the Union were examined by a qualified officer at the time of registration. and the certificate was therefore conelusive evidence that the rules were valid.

The facts of the defence were not correct as rules 8 and 9 of the Union provided for (lie calling of the annual meeting and for the method of voting, which in the absence of anything to the contrary was the ordinary method of voting. The control of funds, was also dealt with by a rule providing for the deposit of monies in the Bank. The inspection of the books. and the registration of members were safeguared by rules 14 • and 24, Rule 10 provided for the duties of t]is secretary as required by the Act, and for, keeping a register of 'members. Alterations of rules were provided for bv rule 21. Each of the objections of the defence was met by the rules of the Union, which had duly passed the-scrutiny of the Registrar. The Union was suing for subscriptions and not defending the constitution of the Union. There was a. rule (section 15 of th? Act of 1900) regulating the pavrnent of fees, and this rule was: registered along villi the others. The comnjittce had power to fix the dates of the annual meeting and for the payment of fees. In the Wellington Slaughtermen's case there was an agreement but no't an award, and this agi-j-emont did not comply with the requirements of the Act. In "the present car:i the defence had attacked rules having no bearing on the payment of the

Mr Xvinne-rr.ey ?-ai.l the defence was that dei .".id;!.]!! had paid two subscriptions to I )io Union along, and had then dropped out. Th-? legi.-i ration of. the Union way not conclusive evidence, that- the rules wer« valid. This war; settled bv the cave IT: | .'idies>ers' I'ni.-.ji v. Kxlii-k. The provisions of i lie Aft had not been coniplifd with : the manner of voting was uof- provided for; lodging nioiK-v i:i a bank did nr;f. constitute an inv. sinii iir: and llit-re was nothing in the ru'.-.-< to provide for tii:- control of pvo- !'• i',y. li'f. suhmiit.-d that the failure to

comply with the Act made the rules void, therefore the fees could not be recovered under these rules. The basis of the association was' wrong, as owners of mills might not be employers- of labour, though they wt-rei numbers of an industrial union) therefore these owners were outside the scope of the Act. .His Woiiship wud he would take time to consider the validity- of the rules uinver which the claim was made, and would reserve, his decision. WAIM ATE —WKDX l-'.SD AY, SEI»T. IS. (Before Major Kedd-ell. 'S.M.) CIVII, CASKS. A lengthy hearing was given a care, vlic-re J. O'Donoghue claimed £4 from George Crc:-:s. St. Andrews for the selvico/ of the horse Knight: of Suowden. Mr Moore for plaintift, Mr A. C. Terry for defendant." The JJctich pay-e judgment for defendant, with c-os!« £3 18s on thegrounds- rliat there w;i.s a private arrangement apnit from t]ji> r.enal custom. BRKAC'H OF .LICENSING ACT.

Daniel Kane pleaded guilty to procuring liquor for George .Johnston, a prohibited person. The Manktrafe- severely lectured accused. There were-. he said, two class-ss of men who supplied' prohibited p?rsor.fi, one of whom gave liquor as an actat kindness, <tnd the other as a. chance to get- liquor for thims-elvrs. Th? latter class was- the most to be blamed. Accused wculd be fined £2 and costs.

Sing a song of Peppermint, The cure that's made by Woods, For ono ami sixpence worth of cost A worth of gc.od. When , the boltle'-s opened. It's praise all people sing: 'Tis certain such a sovereign Cure Would set up any King. ...

Mr Thomas Sneddon, Family Grocer, Mornington, Dunedin, N.Z., writes regarding Chamberlain's Cough Remedy : "My little grandchild was very bad with croup, and we had tried nearly everything we ever heard of, but with no result. We secured a bottle of Chamberlain's Cough Remedy and gave it to him according to directions. It only took a couple of doees to cause all the phlegm to come away, and soon he was out of danger. I really think." he adds, "that Ghmil:orla«'i Ctragh Remedy is the bestremedy sold for children." For saie every wltero.... ■■ ' . ■ An analysis by an American mining journal, of the output- of gold from .sixteen of the greatest quartz mines of the world, for November, . December, and January last. places the Waihi mine, of Auckland, tenth in order of total output -and value of output, tenth in value of ore per ton, sixth in order of

:lieapness of working per ton; and eleventh n. order of profit per ten. The richest ire worked was that of Camp Bird, Colo•ado. value 40 dollars pet- ton; tha next he Esperanza of Mexico, 33 dollars. The iVaihi ore ie put at a little over 11 dol-

iirs. The biggest output of stone .was hat of Romestake, 120,000 tons per month : SVailii being seventh-in this respect with !7,-000 tons.