IN BANCO.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6730, 27 February 1900, Page 3

IN BANCO.

A sitting in Banco was held at> 11 a.m. when his Honor gave judgment in three cases, which had been heard previously. brett v. cox. His Honor said that thi« action, between J.'H. Brett and E. J. o.' Cox, had been begun early in 1898. After a great number of interlocutory proceedings, it had taken the form shown in an amended state- j merit of claim, filed in September, 1899. By it the plaintiff, J. H. Brett, edught to have set aside a guarantee or agreement made between himself and Cox, the defendant in May, 1894, and fbr art account of the financial transactions between them, on the ground that the agreement had been obtained by the fraud and misrepresentation of the defendant. Brett and defendant had had business transactions for some time previous t*'- making the agreement. Brett had lent money to one Paterson for the purchase of sheep, and had himself speculated in the business of frozen meat, consigning through CoxIn May, 1894, Paterson was indebted to Brett and Brett to Cox. Paterson had sent his sheep through Cox, and was largely indebted to him. After setting out the agreement between the parties, his Honor said that the fraud and misrepresentation on which Brett relied were in effect these : That Cox represented tohim that the accounts between Cox and Paterson showed that when all the account sales for meat shipped by Paterson were received, and even allowing for a drop of per lb, there would still be a balance in favour of Paterson of from £600 to £800 ; that the dealings with Paterson had been very profitable, and that it would pay Brett to take over Paterson's liability with Cox, as the surplus would secure the payment of £400 due by Paterson to Brett, and that the matter was perfectly safe and without anv possibility of loss ; and he asked .a bonxig of £100 on the transaction. On the strength of these representations Brett said lie paid £100 and signed the agreement. He now said that these statements were untrue and false to Cox's knowledge ; that he knew the market was falling and that Paterson's assets in his hands were far less than his liabilities. His Honor sad that apart Irom the rule that fraud must be proved fully and f specifically, it was clear that under the circumstances stated it would require a very strong case to enable the plaintiff to succeed. The only direct evidence in Brett'e favour was his* own. It did not go the length of theh his own. It did not go v the length of the dealt at some length with the evidence, judgment would be for the defendant, M r ith costs on the highest scale, second counsel's fee and costs for two extra days being allowed. Mr Bruges appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Harper, with him Mr Beswick, for the defendant. KENWORTHV V. PHARMACY BOARD. In this case, the plaintiff, a chemist and druggist, had applied for a mandamus to compel the Pharmacy Board to register him as a pharmaceutical chemist. The action was a friendly one, the question being whether a qualification gained outside the colony entitled the plaintiff to registration without examination. His Honor said that the short question was — "Must the qualification contained in sub-section 2, section 27 of the Pharmacy Act, 1898, liave been acquired in tie colony.'" He had to take the section as it stood, reading it of course, with the whole Act. There was nothing ini the sub-section in terms limiting it to keeping shop in New Zealand. The only assistance to the interpretation of the sub-section, was the use in it of the words "any legally medical practitioner." He did not think these words necessarily referred to qualification in New Zealand. He could not find in the Pharmacy Act any-* thing tt> limit the generality of the words of sub-section 3, section 7, and he did not feel himself at liberty to introduce words of limitation merely because of his own opinion as to the proi»ble intention of the framers of the Act. It was admitted that the applicant was, if the objection was nut sustained, duly qualified. Judgment would be for a mandamus as prayed. Costs were not applied for. Mr Harper appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Kippenberger for Mr Stringer, for the defendants. TAYLOR AXD OAKLET V. THE COURT 0? ARBITRATION. His Honor said that shortly stated, this action was brought to teßt the right of the Atbit ration Court constituted under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1894, to include in an award an order that employers should give preference to unionists over non-unionists. After referring to the statutes, his Honor said that it was claimed by the plaintiffs that th* jurisdiction of the Court was' strictly limited to questions covered by sub-divisions a to e, de•flning industrial matters, and that the question of the preferential employment of any class of !abour was not within them. 'I tic

title of the Act (omitting so much as was excluded by the amending Act of 1898) was, an Act to facilitate the settlement of Industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration. Undoubtedly a subject, abd a%priticir pal subject of late years, between employers I" and employed hßclbceii trie elaifn of associated labour to decline tb_work with uuasfcociated labpur. This claim, which had been sometimes conceded— more frequent' y resisted — had been the subject of extensive and prolonged strikes by the employed and lock-outs by the employers. H? had never heard it. contended— certainly he did not think that after Allen v. Flood it could be contended — that its concession was illegal, as against public po'icy. It would be a valid subject of reference to any arbitrator appointed by consent of ine parties, and any award in respect of it could be enforced. The contention of the plaintiffs was that, a8 to this important point, the Act was inoperative, and that it still must be decided by the machinery of strikes or look-outs. He thought the question °f preferential employment might, without any straining of the words, be held to be within sub-section b— " the . . . qualification or status of workmen and the mode, terms and conditions of employment " ; or of c— " the employment . ..of any person or persdtts or any cla-ss of persons in any- industry, or the dismissal or refysal-tp .employ anyparticul.tr person or perafifls' or class 'of persons employed therein." The case of an enipjoyer or combination of employers dismissing or refusing tor' employ any unionist —a by no means impossible contingency— i seemed to him exactly contemplated by the provision. In any case, tne queption seemed to him one within the general words of the section, a? a matter affecting the privileges, rights or duties of employers or workmen (not of 'associated workers only), and these general words were expressly declared not to be limited by the Subsequent special provisions. With regard to the contention for tlie plaintiffs that the effect ot discrimination \Va<to deprive unassociated labour of its existing rights, his Honor said that strictly speaking the compulsory discriminations took away no rights, but of courfce it did so indirectly. A non-unionist was hot debarred

from offering his services, but the employer was forbidden to accept them. But that x\w the case in many of the matters expressly provided for. The statement in 1836 of Mr Justice Williams, the first president of thi ■Arbitration Court, on the first occasion nn vfcjiich it, ordered prtferience oh 'certfllp conditions, to unionists, assumed the powtr of the Court to make such an order. In these

prooceaings, he Lad, of course, notlhin^« do with the reasons which ledf the Ooww after very careful consideration, to exaxdttf thia power. Thi*. as were all other, onaij tions, had been left to the discretion of ibn Court in each case. He came, therefore, ii the conclusion that the award he waa oskvq to prohibit was within the jurisdictioa ojj the Court. Judgment would be for tJ»-^» fendants with cost* on the lowest ecaJa, ' Mr Harper, with him Mr Raasell, jwared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Kigpaa; berger, with liim Mr Byrn©» for tht Plumbers and GftFfitters' Unio!^ joined^ defendants.

[Per Press Association.} DUNEDIN, Feb.^TT. The criminal sittings were continued to* day. Pjiter Robert Dewar pleaded gniltt to a charge of robbery at the Clinton Port Office, and was sentenced to sir months' im 1 prisonment. Frances H. Laing, for forgery was sentenced to two yews' imprisonment George Robinson, aged sixty-seven, pleaded guilty to a charge of double 'voting M Oamaru, and was fined £10. Frank Hodges for wounding with intent, was sentenoed tj twelve months' and Henry Wong- *Gye> ' fo{ false pretences'; was sentenced to tail months' imprisonment-