Stemp v Australian Glass Manufacturers Company Limited Informants [1917] HCA 29

226 HIGH COURT ¢

H.C. oF A. circumstances as they exist to-day, justify the Court in giving 1917. Jeave to depart from the primd facie provision of the Regulati Ix re From what I have said, it follows that I refuse the co

pe application of the mortgagor to reduce his rate of interest. Isaacs J. Each party will bear his own costs. Motions dismissed. ies, ot Solicitors for the mortgagee, Williams & Matthews. Ree Solicitors for the mortgagor, Gavan Duffy & King. ; By Be . 3 erchbury

Pitnwater 'Couneil (1999) 10S LGERA 1

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

STEMP : A 5 és e é ' APPELLAI Drrenpant,

AND

THE AUSTRALIAN GLASS MANUFAC- } TURERS COMPANY LIMITED InrorMants,

ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS H.C. or A. OF VICTORIA. 1917,

et pal Constitutional Law—Powers of Commonwealth Parliament—Oonciliation anda

MELBOURNE, tion for settlement of disputes—Prohibition of lock-outs and strikes—The | pases 19, stitution (63 & 64 Vict. ¢. 12), secs. 51 (xxxv.), (xxxxx.), 107—Commo é Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1915 (No. 18 of 1904—No. 35 of Barton A.C.J., secs. 4, 6, Tsaacs, : : Gartieey: The prohibition in sec. 6 (1) of the Commonwealth Conciliation and A Sale tion Act 1904-1915 against doing anything in the nature of a

23 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

or "strike," as those terms are defined in sec. 4, is within the legislative powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth conferred by sec. 5 and (xxx1x.) of the Constitution.

XXxv.)

So held by Barton A.C.J., Isaacs, Higgins and Powers JJ. Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ. dissenting.

Appr from a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria.

At the Court of Petty Sessions at Footscray an information was heard whereby the Australian Glass Manufacturers Co. Ltd. charged that Henry Stemp, being an employee of the informant Company did, on account of an industrial dispute extending beyond the limits of any one State (namely, in the States of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia), do something in the nature of a strike in that he, acting in combination with other employees of the Company and as a means of enforcing compliance with the demands made on the Company by such employees, did strike and