UNION SUED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19642, 9 November 1933, Page 4

UNION SUED

SEQUEL TO STRIKE COURT’S ORDER DISOBEYED By Telegraph—Press Association GISBORNE, November 8. A case was mentioned in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon in which William I'eenan and others are proceeding against the Poverty Bay Freezing Workers’ Union, claiming that the Union, through its Comm' tee, is carrying on in defiance to the rules, and that in seel.'*- to recover subscriptions from plaintiffs, it had exceeded its powers. Mr Beaufoy, solicitor for the defendants, asked leave to retire owing to defendant's refusal to take his advice, and comply with the order of discovery made by the Court. Mr Justice Ostler: So the application was a proper one? Mr Burnard, for the plaintiffs, detailed the proceedings taken for the discovery of documents essential to plaintiff's case. In September, 1932, the defendant Union consiri-ri of 400 members, including the plaint 3s. It refused to accept the terms offered by the employers when the award expired, but the majority of its membe ; went back to work and formed a new union. Since then the defendant Union had been practically defunct. It had held no election, had not presented another balance sheet, and had done nothing except sue certain plaintiffs for their fees. His Honour adjourned the case till the morning, stating that much would depend upon the action taken by defendants meantime to comply with the order of ‘he Court. When the hearing of the case was resumed this morning, Mr Bernard intimated that he had received a number of documents, but the position was still un: isfactory. Mr Whitehead, appearing for the defendants, submitted that the only obligation imposed upon Bickford, the secretary to the Union, was to disclose all documents in his possession. He had done that. His Honour: It has been shown that the auditor submitted a report that should have been disclosed. Regarding the default in complying with the order, in my opinion it was wilful. Bickford was clearly advised that it was his duty to obey the order of the Court, and make full discovery, No steps were taken to obey the order, and it is not obeyed at this moment. It was only under threat of attachment yesterday that these papers were handed up in dribs and drabs. I should be stultifying the Court if I overlooked such a deliberate flouting of an order of the Court. Though I may be showing weakness, howevpr, I shall not issue a writ of attachment to imprison Bickford, but shall order the statement of defence to be struck out, and shall hold over the order of attachment until the hearing. I shall then decide if it is in the interests of justice to commit Bickford for. contempt. Plaintiffs will have to prove their case, but the defendants will have no right of defence.”