FLEA OF GUILTY

Waikato Times, Volume 131, Issue 21836, 17 September 1942, Page 2

FLEA OF GUILTY

UNLAWFUL STRIKE PROSECUTION AT HUNTLY 196 MEN BEFORE COURT The restricted accommodation of the Huntly Police Court was strained beyond its capacity today when 196 Pukemiro miners were called, on summons, before Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., to answer charges of being parties to a strike contrary to the provisions of the Strike and Lockout Emergency Regulations, 1939. The informations were laid by the Labour Department, for whom the Auckland Crown Prosecutor, Mr V. R. Meredith, appeared, in association with Mr J. R. Fitz Gerald, of Hamilton. The miners’ interests were watched by Mr W. J. King, of Hamilton. 1 An air of expectancy prevailed throughout the town during the hearing of the proceedings, all points of vantage in the vicinity of the Courthouse being crammed by miners and other interested citizens, who endeavoured, in some instances, to follow the proceedings through the restricted vision of the side windows of the court buildings. Others waited in large groups at the front of the building, unable to gain admission to the well of the Court, which was inadequate to accommodate the defendants, who waited outside the courtroom. Four Separate Groups Mr King informed the court that the defendants could be grouped into four separate cases. There were those who were obviously guilty of a technical breach, those men who were on a back shift, that section which was actually at the time on workers’ compensation and, fourthly, that class representing boys of 18 years and under. The majority of the men were quite prepared to plead guilty to a technical breach, and asked as a concession that the prosecutions against the boys concerned be withdrawn. Mr Meredith raised no objection to this course. Mr King intimated that he had been instructed to acknowledge all the charges. It was most essential to get the men to return to work. He understood that the dispute that gave rise to the court proceedings was not beyond solving. However, the admission of a technical breach should not be construed that the men were the guilty parties to the mining impasse. He asked that the proceedings be adjourned to assist in a settlement of the dispute. Objection To Adjournment

Mr Meredith raised strong objection to an adjournment, pointing out the extreme gravity of the position. The matter in dispute was quite irrelevant to the court proceedings. There was ample machinery available for a settlement of their differences. The matter was too grave to permit of any further delay. “As far as an adjournment is concerned, that is out of the question,” said Mr Freeman. “The position today is too grave to allow of an adjournment. Coal production in the Dominion is vital. We want more and more coal.”

Mr King then asked, in the event of convictions being entered, that no penalty be imposed at the present time. It was the desire of every man concerned that they return to work. Mr Meredith outlined the facts leading up to the men going out on strike at Pukemiro on September 3. As a result of the attitude they had taken up the community and the authorities controlling the destinies of the country had been put to considerable embarrassment. He need hardly stress, he said, the imperative and desperate importance of the commodity on which depended the transport industry and other aspects of the economical life of the community. The Dominion was engaged in a life-and-death struggle, and to deprive it of coal was endangering the war effort. “In times like these, when every possible thing should be done, and we have troops of our own overseas—and dying—it seems all the more incredible that this could happen now,” he added. Another Side To Question

Mr King emphasised that there was another side to the question. The workers could not accept full responsibility for the position. They fully appreciated the difficulties that had arisen as a result of the dispute and were most anxious to have the dispute settled and get back to work. He hoped that any penalty imposed would be in proportion not to the consequence of the action of the men but to the offence. Mr Freeman: “Am I to understand that the men are prepared to go back immediately to work?”

Mr King: “I cannot say that. They are most anxious to meet and have the terms of the dispute settled.” When Mr Freeman pointed out that he was being asked to hold up judgment until the men settled their dispute, Mr King said he was only asking that judgment be suspended, say, for a month. The men had admitted their fault, and were willing to accept their punishment. Mr Meredith said he could «ot understand the application of opposing counsel. If he wished to intimate to the court that judgment should be suspended with the proviso that the men return to work, Mr Meredith would be in agreement. Grave Responsibility

On Mr King intimating that he was not in a position at the moment to give such an undertaking, Mr Freeman announced that he would adjourn the court until 2 o’clock, to allow counsel the opportunity of conferring with the men. “The matter is so serious,” he said, “that it cannot be allowed to continue. We want coal for the war effort, and the miners know that as well as you and I. There is a grave responsibility resting on the shoulders of the court today, and I cannot see why the necessary undertaking that the men return to work cannot be given. I trust that they do not put their union before their country and the Empire.” When the court resumed at 2 o’clock Mr King asked for and obtained a further adjournment of half an hour, after which time, he indicated, he expected to have a statement to offer. At 3 o’clock, however, there was no lurther development.

Chimney Sweep Appeals The question how often a chimney should be swept was answered by a reservist who appeared before the Southland Armed Forces Appeal Board at Invercargill. He said a range chimney should be swept every 18 months, an open-fire chimney every two years, but a “wetback” fireplace chimney at least once every four months. The reservist was Albert Thomas Ladbrook, chimney sweep, who appealed against service on the grounds of public interest. The appeal was adjourned sine die, the reservist being directed to serve in the Emergency Fire Service.