Auckland Star, 14 Aug 1920 POLICE COURT: Stuart Billman (22), charged with the theft of wire netting and rubberoid from the Farmers' Union Trading Co.,

New Zealand Herald, 21 Aug 1920: THEFT AND RECEIVING.CONSPIRACY REVEALED. OFFENDERS PUNISHED Stuart Billman (Mr. Matthews), the second carter, admitted the theft of two rolls of wire netting and a roll of rubberoid, the property of the Farmers' Union Trading Company. Chief-Detective McMahon said that when charged the men made truthful and frank statements, and gave every assistance. Billman made a statement to the effect that, at Jones's suggestion that he would like some wire netting and rubberoid for use at his house, he took the rubberoid and netting when loading at the Farmers Union Trading Company's warebouse at different times, receiving 30s for the netting and 10s for the rubberoid. In a statement Jones admitted receiving from Culhane and Billman the articles they had enumerated, knowing they were stolen and also sacks of maize, wheat, and sugar from two other men. The articles were consigned to his home at Papakura.

On behalf of the men it was stated that with the exception of Culhane, they were all married. Jenkins* counsel said that though Jenkins had previously been convicted for theft of flour, that, as well as the sugar, had been used in accused's home, where he had a struggle to keep his wife and two children on his wages. The magistrate said it seemed to him there would not have been any thefts had it not been for the suggestions made by Jones. Jenkins, Culhane, and Billman were each fined £10 in default two months' imprisonment, Jones was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour.

June 1921 was a sugar works employee and was living at Birkenhead, Auckland

SUGAR WORKS DISPUTE. CONDITIONS OF WORK. DANGEROUS NATURE DENIED

The hearing of the sugar workers' application for an increase of 5s per week was concluded in the Arbitration Court on Saturday. The application was presented by Mr. J. Purtell, secretary of the Sugar Workers' Union, and was opposed on behalf of the employers by Mr. S. E. Wright and Mr. Ashley Campbell, manager of tho sugar refinery at Chelsea.

In rebutting the evidence of Stuart Billman, a raw store worker, who said he had been refused an insurance policy by an Auckland cdinpany while he was at work, apparently on the ground that his work was dangerous, Mr. Campbell said that Billman, being insured under the Workers' Compensation Act, would not be eligible for further insurance with a company. If he were, it might be a very payable proposition to maintain oneself in a permanently injured condition.

Mr. Justice Frazer; In other words, the companies will not double-bank. Regarding the housing scheme undertaken by the Colonial Sugar Company at Chelsea, Mr. Campbell said that 35 employees already owned their own houses under the scheme, 23 had left tho company's service still owning houses under the scheme, while 15 men were paying from 8s to 14s a week in rent for houses worth 30s a week. There were 77 men who. chose to reside across the water in Auckland for family and private reasons. These could obtain a weekly ticket on the ferries for 3s.

O. Harnden, foreman of the raw store, described the process of breaking down stacks, consisting of sacks of sugar, 20ft. to 30ft. high. Care had to be exercised to ensure that the stack did not overhang men working below, but the work -was no more dangerous than other work. The proportion of accidents was. very small. *He had been 18 years in the raw store, but had only met with one serious accident. On that occasion he fell about 34ft., and was in hospital seven weeks. The accident was not due to faulty construction of the stack or to any neglect on tho part of the management. Sir. Campbell said that to the layman the stack appeared at times to have a dangerous overhang, but in reality it was quite, safe, and he had been told by men at the works that they could sleep under the stack with safety. Piles and binders were driven in to hold it together. Mr. Wright submitted that no advance in wages was justified unless conditions had altered since the last award was made. This, he said, had not been shown. The Sugar Workers Award could be fairly compared with the Storemen and Packers, except that the shop packer required more knowledge of the goods he handled—

Mr. Hiram Hunter, assessor for the workers: And does not work so hard as these fellows.

Mr. Wright disagreed on the point. He said that it seemed strange that the Government could not provide a worker's cottage for less than 22s 6d to 30s a week,, whereas the Colonial Sugar Company did it for 14s a week. Stuart Billman, recalled, said his impression was that a policy had been refused him because his work in the raw store was deemed to be dangerous. He now realised that that was not the reason, which was that the insurance company would not encroach upon the risks covered* by the Workers' Compensation Act. Mr. Purlell said he believed the company would, do far better if it co-operated with the men instead of taking up its present attitude. As regards conditions, he had observed that temperatures of 86 and 98 degrees prevailed in certain departments, where heavy work was performed, and this called for special rales of wages. No one would contest the ability of the company to pay the increases asked for. As regards the watchman, Richard Hill, Mr. Purtell maintained that it was unfair, when 48 hours was the ruling working week in this country, to make a man work 60 hours a week and so deprive him of time for recreation. It was manifestly unreasonable to pay a man the small wage of £4 Is for 60 hours a week, with no holidays in the year and no extra pay for Sunday work. Tho Court announced "that, it would endeavour to make its award before the Christmas holidays.

SUGAR WORKS DISPUTE. INCREASED WAGES SOUGHT. OUTPUT AND MACHINERY. COMPANY'S HOUSING SCHEME An application for an increase of 5s per week in the wages of sugar workers As considered by the Arbitration Court yesterday. Mr. J. Purtell, secretary of the Union presented the application, which was opposed by the employers, for whom Mr. S. E. Wright and Mr. Ashley Campbell, manager of the sugar refinery at Chelsea, appeared. Mr. Purtell said the increased pay asked for would mean a minimum wage of £4 2$ to £4 18s. Stuart Billman, a raw store worker, said he received £3 19s 6d wages. He regarded the work as dangerous. Minor, accidents happened practically every day. When witness attempted to insure himself he was told the insurance company coulcl not issue a policy to cover him while he was at work, but could for the time he was not at work. Cross-examined by Mr. Campbell, witness said he stayed at the work because he oould not better himself. George Pugh said he had been a sugar worker for about 20 years. He received £4 10s a week as a liquor-runner." His Honor: The term has a different meaning, I suppose, from what it has in the United States. (Laughter.) James Ross, a foreman, thought that if there were more than six fires an extra man should be employed. Cross-examined by Mr. Campbell, witness said that the increased output of today was due to the company's attention to improvements in the boiler-room. Richard Hill, a watchman, stated that ho worked 60 hours a week. He had never received extra pay for Sunday work. He had worked three years and two months without having half an hour's holiday. Mr. Wright said the Court would remember that on two previous occasions they had heard practically the same tale as to the strenuous nature of the work. The only factors that would warrant an increase would bo higher cost of living, or that the working conditions had been made harder. The cost of living had really gone down since the last award. Ashley Campbell said the increase of output had come about chiefly' by the expenditure of a great amount of capital in renovating, plant, which had, unfortunately, been allowed to get into a state of disrepair.. Mr. Justice Frazer: Do I gather that trio expenditure of money on renovating the plant and adding Vacuum bands and other improvements has accounted for the additional cutput? You are not suggesting that the men are working any less well Witness: Not for a moment. They are nil doing their best, no far as I know, but under better conditions. Witness, continuing, said the men worked harder at an earlier period, when turning out a smaller volume of sugar- The company's workers came under the Compensation Act; they had not insured them with any insurance company. He was at a loss to understand the statement made by Billman as to his being refused by an insurance company. (The Inen, he fcund, would go on undermining a stack of sugar to an extent that, to witness, as a layman, appeared to be dangerous, and he had at times called their attention to it. Referring to the company's housing ""home, witness said they had over 100 houses. He described the methods under which employees could obtain their own houses and said that not many men had larger loans for houses than £600, for •which a charge of 14s a week was made toward the.purchase of the house. He submitted that that housing scheme was one of the reasons why the company's men were better off thani the average, worker in Auckland. The hearing was adjourned until today.

Auckland Star, 10 June 1931; IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT HELD AT AUCKLAND. Plaint No. 12923/30. Betwoon THE MAYOR, COUNCILLORS and BURGESSES of the Borough of Birkenhead, Plaintiff; and STUART RILLMAN, of Glenfield Road, Birkenhead, Sugar Worker, Defendant. To STUART BILLMAN, of Glenfield Road, Birkenhead, Sugar Worker. Take notice that an action has been commenced against you in the above Court by the above Plaintiff for the sum of £7 5s 5d for Rates and Penalty owing to March 31, 1929. and for the sum of £7 12s 3d for Rates and Penally owing to March 31, 1930, both sums being in respect of Lot 4 of a subdivision of Lot 3 of Allotment 153, Parish of Takapuna, and the order has been made that publication of the notice of such action once in the "New Zealand Herald" and once in the "Auckland Star" shall be deemed to be service of the summons upon you.

Tin's summons will be heard on THURSDAY the 2nd day of July. 1931, at 10.30 o'clock in the forenoon at the Magistrate's Court at Auckland, and in default of your filing notice of intention to defend such claim in the office of the said Court at Auckland on or before the fith day of June, 1931, judgment may be given against you, your absence notwithstanding.Auckland this 8th day of June, J. C MALFROY. Clerk of the Court.