SUPPLY OF PETROL

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 August 1934, Page 6

SUPPLY OF PETROL

STATION PROPRIETOR’S CLAIM. WELLINGTON, August 13. Alleging that he had been victimised by the executive of the Wellington Petrol Re-sellers’ Association, James Leach, proprietor of a station in Wakefield Street, claimed £5O damages, at the Magistrate’s Court, to-day, from persons forming that executive. The statement of claim set out that in March he received advice from the Gilmore Oil Company that as the result of a change in policy, whereby the Company was ceasing to supply re-sellers with motor spirit, it would discontinue-serving plaintiff with petrol. Upon this plaintiff made application to the major oil companies for a supply, but the Companies declined. Plaintiff, in consequence, carried on this part of the business by obtaining supplies from various service station proprietors. Plaintiff had been followed and kept under observation by defendants or their agents and others, and his business premises had been watched also. He alleged that defendant, or their agents made representations to coerce private station proprietors to refuse to supply plaintiff. In consequence of this systematic interference, observation and actions of defendants, plaintiff suffered loss and expense and had been prejudiced in carrying on his business. Counsel for plaintiff set out. the

grounds on which the action was brought as follow: First, intent among defendants to inflict damage on plaintiff. Second, interference with plaintiff in the right to carry on business without just cause or excuse either individually or in combination. Third, conspiracy to damage and injure plaintiff. Fourth, malice. Fifth, use of threats, coercion, intimidation and molestation. Sixth, employment by defendants of unlawfull means in activities against plaintiff, either as (a) constituting a nuisance in the way of annoyance, obstruction, interference, and observation, and intent to injure, or (b) as an offence under the Police Offences Act and (c) inciting to lawlessness and creating violence amounting to a breach of peace. Seventh, all the foregoing grounds taken together. Counsel said the whole of the trouble arose out of the fact that defendants considered the plaintiff a price-cutter, and also considered there ■were too many service stations in the city. They therefore endeavoured toput plaintiff out of business. Counsel for the defendants indicated the general lines the defence would take. First, general denial of all of plaintiff’s allegations. Second, . that there was no unlawful combination or act on the part of defendants. Third, if justification or excuse was necessary, self-interest or trade interest formed adequate answer. Fourth, that plaintiff had suffered no damage.

Counsel remarked that other points also would have to be touched upon. Nuisance had not been alleged, but it had been, put before the Court in counsel’s address. It had been alleged there had been a breach of the Police Offences Act. Even if there had been such breach it did not give any right to damages. Evidence is being heard.