WATERSIDER’S CLAIM FAILS

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 June 1933, Page 11

WATERSIDER’S CLAIM FAILS

QUESTION OF PROTECTION (pee pbess association.] CHRISTCHURCH, June 9. The hearing was continued of the claim for £lOO before Mr. Young, S.M., at the Lyttelton Court, plaintiff being Harry Hutson, watersider, who alleged that five employers, of labour had combined to injure him in his calling. Counsel for the defendant parties moved for a non-suit. He argued that if the real purpose of the combination was not to injure the plaintiff but to defend certain, other persons, no action for damages would be provided as no illegal means were used. The plaintiff must prove this was a conspiracy with the object of diong harm to him, and of this there was no proof. It was denied that there was any combination. It was admitted that on some occasions employers had refused to employ Huston, but this did not prove combination not to employ. The employers had acted to protect their own interests. They considered Huston dangerous and a menace and that he might cause trouble among their own employees on the waterfront. The Magistrate said he agreed with the contention of counsel. He would go further, and say that jf there was combination, its real purpose was not to injure plaintiff but to protect other workers. The application for a non-suit was upheld.