DOMINION NEWS

Grey River Argus, 10 June 1933, Page 6

DOMINION NEWS

RELIEF WORKER FINED. TIMARU. Juno *. Failure to disclose in Form U.K. 32 the fa-1 that he was receiving 11 a week in res; oct of the boarding of a youth was the subject of a charge against Janies Gibson Fraser in the Magistrate’." Court. Mr E. C. Foote, who appeared for the department, said that defendant was a relief worker. ami in answer to the question on the form relating to income from boarders, he had written “nil.” \ line of 12/ was imposed. DUNEDIN UNEMPLOYED. DUNEDIN. Juno 8. -At the City Council meetin _■ lasi evening, the Mayor suggested a loan of £70.900 for use this year to pro vide juaterials for permanent works ami increasing the unemployed’s wages. He said they wore now spend* ing £130,900 annually with little per manent result. The provision of ad ■ litional wa'.’es was an urgent que*’j lion, for larking necessities people be (time bitter, and an adequate wage was an insurance against disorder. The Mayor’s proposals, which sug ' gested the works to be undertaken, were referred to the Finance Com m.ittee, WATERSIDER’S CLAIM. CHRISTCHURCH, June 9. A claim for £lOO was heard by Mr I Young, S.M., at the Lyttelton Court ! this morning, plaintiff being Harry Hutson, watersider, who alleged that five employers of labour had combined Ito injure him in his calling. Defendants were Arthur Knight I Dyne, stationmaster, Lyttelton; Rob- . erf C. S. Kipagc, agent for the New Zealand Shipping Company; Walter Scott, master mariner; Joseph Garrard, branch manager for Kinsey and Co, ami Thomas Henry, wharf superintendent for the Union Company, all of whom denied combination in rcI fusing to give plaintiff work. I Counsel stated that in March plainl tiff was bound over on a charge of i {assault. He had thrown a knife along :a fable. Tim knife unfortunately struck the foreman, and plaintiff was charged with assault. Magistrate Mosley had then stated the case was not as serious as it appeared. The defendants had considered the penalty Imposed not sufficiently severe, and plrintiff had thus been unable to obtain work. NON SUIT GRANTED. CHRISTCHURCH, June 9. Counsel for the defomkmt parties moved for a non-suit. It was argued that if the real purpose of the combination was not to injure the plaintiff bui to defend eerfain other persons, iio action for damages would be provided as no illegal means were used The plaintiff must prove this was a conspiracy with the object of doing harm to him. and of thi s there was no proof. It was denied that th'rc was any combination. It was admitted that on sonic occasions employers had refused to employ Huston, but this did not prove combination not, to employ The employers ha I acted to profo-i their own interests. Thpv <-o' ’/.red Hus ton dangerous ami a : - i ■■ and that lie might cause trouble among their own employ' e> on the waterfront. Tlie Magistrate said he agreed with the contention of counsel for the defendants. He would go further, and say that if there was combination, its real purpose n ot to injure plaintiff but to. protect other workers The application for a non-suit was upheld.