FARMERS IN DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 213, 8 September 1926, Page 9

FARMERS IN DISPUTE.

CREAM-CARRYING CONTRACT. IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. (By Telegraph.— Own Oorre»pondent.) TT AMTT.TfW, this day. Reserved judgment was delivered by Mr. Wyvern Wilaon, S.M., to-day in the case in which L. G. Osborne brought an action for £200 damages against H. Livingstone and J. H. Gore on the grounds of an allegec conspiracy. Mr. de la Mare appeared for plaintiff, and defendants were represented by Mr. Strang.

In giving judgment his Worship said that the plaintiff, who was a farmer and carrier, sued the two defendants in partnership at Tuhikaramea on the grounds that they had wrongfully conspired to cause the Waikatc Valley Dairy Company to cease to deal with him in his business as a carrier, and in pursuance of that had caused a customer to deprive plaintiff of business. When the action was first commenced plaintiff placed his damages at £10, but subsequently amended his statement of claim for £200 damages.

His Worship said that the evidence left with him the impression that there was a stronger ill-feeling by plaintiff towards defendants than by them against him. In an action of such a nature it was essential for the plaintiff to establish malice on the part of the defendants. Such actions might be brought on two causes, either of doing a thing which was in itself illegal or doing a thing which was legal, but malicious. The onus of proving malice rested on the plaintiff, and the evidence called failed to satisfy his Worship that the steps were taken by the defendants for another purpose than protecting themselves, and that was one reason why plaintiff must fail. Another reason was that the defendants had not combined for the purpose, and were only acting as partners; their joint interests took the case out of the line of a conspiracy; what they had threatened to do was a perfectly lawful act. A third reason why plaintiff must fail was that he had not proved that at the time of the commencement of the action he had sustained any damage by the withdrawal of certain suppliers. Plaintiff, for failing to prove malice, must, therefore, be nonsuited, with £10 costs for defendants.