NONSUIT ALLOWED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 135, 10 June 1933, Page 14

NONSUIT ALLOWED.

WATERSIDE WORKER'S CLAIM

ACTION AGAINST EMPLOYERS.

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.)

CHRISTCHUECH, Friday.

Counsel for the defendant parties moved for a nonsuit this afternoon in respect of the claim for £100 which was heard by Mr. H. A. Young, S.M., in the Lyttelton Magistrate's Court, the plain, tiff being Harry Huston, a watersider, who alleged that five employers of labour had combined to injure him in his calling. Defendants were Arthur Knight Dyne, stationmaster at Lyttelton; Robert C. Skipage, agent for the New Zealand Shipping Company; Walter Scott, master mariner; Joseph Garrard, branch manager for Kinsey and Company; and Thomas Henry, wharf superintendent for the Union Company, all of whom denied combination in refusing to give plaintiff work. Counsel stated that in March plaintiff was bound over on a charge of assault. He had thrown a knife along a table, and tho knife unfortunately struck the foreman, and plaintiff was charged with assault. The magistrate, Mr. E. D. Mosley, then stated that the case was not as serious as it appeared. In moving for a nonsuit, counsel for defendant argued that if the real pur'.posc of a combination was not to injure ■plaintiff, but to defend certain other persons, an action for damages could not succeed. Plaintiff must prove there was a conspiracy with the object of doing harm to him, and of this thero was no proof. It was denied there was any combination. It was admitted that on some occasions eome employers had refused to employ Huston, but the employers had acted to protect their own interests. They considered Huston was dangerous and a menace, and might cause trouble among their own employees on the waterfront. ' The magistrate said he agreed with the contention of counsel for defenants. He would go further, and say that if there was a combination its real purpose was not to injuro plaintiff, but to protect other workers. The application for a nonsuit was upheld.